Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments agreed to.

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Bill to be considered upon Thursday.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return,
of Experiments performed in Great Britain under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1975.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Preventive Medicine and Health Education

Mr. Nelson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will undertake a programme of preventive medicine and health education.

Mr. Wakeham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to follow up the statements in the document "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business".

The Minister of State, Department of Mealth and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): The recent consultative document "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" aims to stimulate interest in prevention amongst the general public and in the health service. A series of specific papers will be published over the next few months on fluoridation, occupational health, and services related to pregnancy and childbirth. This programme is being, and will be, further supported by decisions to divert resources, both financial and personnel, towards preventive health.

Mr. Nelson: Is the Minister aware that one out of every three children in the country is not receiving a polio vaccination? Does he recognise that poliomyelitis in other countries could be easily imported into this country? What action does he intend to take to bring to the attention of parents the need for a high level of polio vaccination for children?

Dr. Owen: There has recently been an increase in polio vaccination, and to some extent, that reflects what the hon. Gentleman said about the fairly low uptake in the past. That has concerned me, not just for polio, but other vaccination programmes. Sometimes I wish that the general publicity about vaccination would concentrate more on the benefits than on some of the admitted disadvantages of vaccination, because the advantages of vaccination, when properly organised, far outweigh the disadvantages.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the need to reach the


groups of the population that do not normally come into contact with health education would be helped if the Health Education Council had a larger budget than the rather measly £1½ million that it now gets?

Dr. Owen: That is something that we can examine. I am not certain that the way to improve the situation is to increase central resources, but I agree that there is a strong case for spending more. What is needed is more action in the localities, and there the community health councils have a great rôle to play.

Mr. Wakeham: Has the Minister had any discussions about health education with the Secretary of State for Employment?

Dr. Owen: We are in fairly constant touch, particularly over the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, for which the Secretary of State for Employment has a major responsibility and in which my Department has an interest. I have not discussed the matter with the Secretary of State in any detail, but there is regular contact between officials in the Departments.

Mrs. Chalker: What action is being taken to reduce the risk of people having heart attacks, to save the 3,500 beds daily which are occupied by the victims of heart attacks?

Dr. Owen: It is not always for a Minister to take action on such matters. We have to try to get home to people that they have a considerable amount of responsibility themselves. As the booklet "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" says, we have become too used to thinking that this is a problem to be solved by Ministers, doctors or pills.

Mobility Allowance

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if lie will make a statement on the take-up of mobility allowance.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am glad to be able to say that take-up has recently come well up to our expectations. By 16th July, over 34,000 claims had been received from disabled people in the eligible age range of 15 to 50. So far, awards have been made in over

22,000 cases. Some 5,000 have been disallowed. As my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 23rd July made clear, disabled children aged 11 to 14 will become eligible to claim the mobility allowance from 25th August for payment from 24th November.

Mr. Hicks: I thank the Minister for that information. Is he aware that one of the obstacles that should be considered in regard to mobility allowance is the inability of the individual to meet the initial purchase price of the four-wheeled motor car? Will he investigate the possibility of allowing a person to commute his or her mobility allowance to assist with the initial financial outlay?

Mr. Morris: I must emphasise that the mobility allowance has been highly popular with disabled people. The vast majority of them have chosen the mobility allowance in preference to the vehicle. I am very much aware of the importance of commutation, which is why I have been working with the Central Council for the Disabled with a view to seeing whether we can arrive at a scheme that will enable disabled people to commute the allowance so as to be able to purchase the car of their choice.

Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend try to educate the mass media to understand that the vast majority of disabled people are not disabled drivers, and that a vehicle is of no use to them at all? Is he aware that cash rather than a car is widely accepted as the best policy?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a most important point. It was put to me strongly by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, representing 26 national organisations, that it was the most cruel anomaly to exclude from mobility allowance people who are too severely disabled to drive. I am glad that we are now able to give help equally to disabled drivers and those who are too disabled to drive.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will he take the opportunity to qualify what was said in the announcement made on Friday by the Secretary of State for Social Services? What is the position about disabled people who have been promised three-wheeler trikes and who are now awaiting


delivery? Will those deliveries be honoured?

Mr. Morris: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the extension of the mobility allowance to younger children will be warmly welcomed, and that he and his colleagues deserve to be congratulated on that achievement? Nevertheless, will not the phasing out of the three-wheeler create severe hardships to some categories of people, notably those who depend on three-wheelers to go to work? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the possibility of providing some realistic assistance to enable those people to get to work?

Mr. Morris: That, again, is a most important matter. A case was reported in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, although that newspaper made no reference whatever to the fares-to-work scheme of the Employment Services Agency. I am glad to say that, quite apart from the mobility allowance, registered disabled people who have to incur substantial expense, which they cannot otherwise afford in order to get to work, may be eligible for financial help from the Employment Services Agency and will be able to apply for such assistance if they cease to have use of an invalid tricycle. I cannot forecast the outcome of any particular case, because grants are based on consideration of individual circumstances.

Earnings Rule

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to phase out the earnings rule.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): We have no plans to do this at the present time, because of the prohibitive cost.

Mr. Skeet: Does the Minister appreciate that the £50 sum is enshrined in the Social Security Act 1975, and does he agree that it should be extended to £65 per week, which is the average wage earned in manufacturing industry? Surely the Government must respect this situation. It is far better for retirement pensioners to be independent. Will he

say how many people are likely to be involved following the abolition of the earnings rule?

Mr. Orme: The Government are to amend the Act in the next Session to restrict the figure to £35, with appropriate cost-of-living adjustments. Most people who now benefit from the earnings rule will not suffer because of the £35 limit. If the rule were abolished altogether, about 110,000 people would be involved.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister agree that it is grossly unfair that earnings-related supplement to unemployment pay should be subject to the earnings rule, since this can only discriminate against the lowest paid?

Mr. Orme: I am examining that matter.

Thalidomide

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in view of renewed public interest in documents recently published for the first time, if he will order a public inquiry into the case of the drug thalidomide affecting the birth of deformed children.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now hold a public inquiry into the thalidomide tragedy.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): Following the thalidomide tragedy the Committee on Safety of Drugs was appointed in 1963 and a review of medicines legislation was completed. The review led to the Medicines Act 1968, which provided powers for new and comprehensive controls for the safety, quality and efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use. It is unlikely that an inquiry into the thalidomide case would be helpful in identifying further safety measures.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the Secretary of State agree that an inquiry should take place at this time into the manufacturing and marketing methods pursued by the Distillers Company, in view of the legal restraints imposed on those making claims on behalf of children and also on the Press, particularly bearing in mind the attitude and ministerial responsibility—or irresponsibility—at the time of the tragedy? Does he not agree that this matter should be investigated?

Mr. Ennals: I do not think that would serve any useful purpose. The facts are well known and have now been published. I do not believe that an inquiry would lead to any new or helpful facts. It would be disturbing for many of those involved.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I believe that he is wrong in assuming that a public inquiry would not help to uncover further safety measures, because a good deal of information about the thalidomide tragedy has not yet been disclosed? It is possible—I would say probable—that some other firms are doing exactly the same things now as the Distillers Company was doing then. Therefore, does he agree that a public inquiry, with full public disclosure, is the only way of avoiding this situation? Does he further agree that the cases of the "Y" list children not yet decided would be helped by a public inquiry? Will he reconsider his decision?

Mr. Ennals: An inquiry into the thalidomide case would not necessarily reveal any facts in relation to other firms. Under the present system, extensive tests and trials are undertaken before a product licence for a new drug is granted. Results of such tests and trials cannot provide a complete assurance against the possibility that a product when brought into widespread use will have an adverse effect on some patients. There is no doubt that the situation has greatly improved since the events of 10 years ago. As for the children, it is a matter between the children, their legal advisers, the Distillers Company and the courts. My information is that so far no claim has been turned down and that 12 of the original children, who numbered 97, have now had their claims accepted. So far as I am aware, the others have not had their claims rejected. It is hoped that their cases will be speedily settled.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have had my differences with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to deny the suggestions made in The Sunday Times that the right hon. Gentleman bore some share of the blame for this tragedy?

Mr. Ennals: I am delighted to hear that the differences between the two right

hon. Gentlemen have now been resolved—

Mr. Powell: Haud tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis.

Mr. Ennals: —however, I do not think that it is for me to stand in some judicial capacity and say that no responsibility falls on the right hon. Gentleman. It is not for me to reach a conclusion one way or the other, and I do not think the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would want to do so.

Mrs. Castle: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry? Is he aware that when I was Secretary of State for Social Services I was ready to hold a public inquiry, but it seemed to all those interested at the time that the Press would be able to reveal the full facts? We now know that it is not possible, and that certain documents cannot be published. In view of the fact that this is the most serious drug tragedy in our history, can my right hon. Friend be absolutely sure, without holding a public inquiry, that we have learned all the lessons from this matter that will lead to our full protection?

Mr. Ennals: I have such respect for my right hon. Friend that if ever she asks me to think about anything again, I agree to do so.

Homeless Persons

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Social Services what further steps he proposes to take to tackle the problems of homeless young people.

Mr. Ennals: I hope to be able to publish the report of the working group which has been considering these problems before the recess and I propose to consider further, in consultation with my colleagues and other interested parties, what steps can be taken at the present time, bearing in mind the need for restraint in public expenditure.

Mr. Lane: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is now urgent that the Government should give an effective lead well before the winter? Could he at least give us an assurance that while resources must remain limited, help for


young homeless people will not be restricted further as a result of the recent review of public expenditure?

Mr. Ennals: I shall make a statement on this matter before the Summer Recess, which means that hon. Members have only a few days to wait for this statement and the publication of the report. We do have to watch public expenditure very carefully. It would be wrong to imply that there should be some new responsibility for local authorities to carry out and new functions to fulfill if the funds are not provided to enable them to do so.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will freedom from the new restrictions be given to areas of extreme stress rather than to individual groups in various circumstances? Will the Secretary of State consult the Minister for Housing, in particular, about the ways in which homeless young people can be protected from the forthcoming blast?

Mr. Ennals: Yes, I shall do that. I have great concern for the problems of homeless people, having once been the Chairman of the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless. These problems concern me very much, but I would rather refrain from comment until the report is published.

Mrs. Chalker: What action will the Secretary of State take to persuade British Rail to reverse its decision about the siting of an information booth on Euston Station to help young people when they come to London? Will he press British Rail to set up a similar booth at Victoria Coach Station, in order to point young people in the right direction?

Mr. Ennals: I am concerned about the decision taken by British Rail on this matter. The British Raliways Board wrote to the Home Office only on 20th July, and I am consulting with my hon. Friends about ways in which the difficulties put forward by the board can be met. It would be a great advantage if there were information centres at both Euston and Victoria Coach Station. The National Bus Company has been very co-operative about taking part in discussions on that proposal.

Invalid Care Allowance

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the take up of the invalid care allowance.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 12th July. We are continuing to take all suitable opportunities to underline the advantages of the new benefit. In this regard, I should like to emphasise again that the new allowance not only provides non-means-tested help where only means-tested benefits have been available hitherto, but also that those who are entitled to the allowance are credited with class 1 national insurance contributions.

Mr. Finsberg: Naturally I am grateful for that reply. Can the Minister tell the House roughly the amount of public expenditure that would be involved if married women were brought into the scheme?

Mr. Morris: I can only make a "guesstimate". My best guesstimate is that the additional cost would be about £25 million. I have said before that many hon. Members seem to believe that the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole. Those who want us to reduce the totality of public expenditure are the very people who want us to increase certain elements of it. They seem to believe that the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

Mr. Ovenden: Many of the families affected by this new allowance are unsure of the right to claim this and the attendance allowance at the same time. What action is the Minister taking to make people aware of both entitlements?

Mr. Morris: I have been in contact with hon. Members on both sides of the House in an attempt to get maximum publicity for the new benefit. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The attendance allowance is payable in addition to the invalid care allowance. The mobility allowance is payable also to the same household, and there is an income disregard of £6 a week plus class 1 national insurance contributions. Some people have said, or implied, that we are


doing too much, but they should look at the alternative costs, both human and financial, of forcing people into institutions when they could otherwise live in the community.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: An Opposition Prayer on this matter has been on the Order Paper for some months. It was put down to give the House an opportunity to debate the Regulations and the problems arising from the new benefit before it came into payment. The Government are surely not trying to avoid a debate in this area in the same way as they are chopping more controversial debates. Will the Minister ask the Leader of the House to make time for a full and proper debate on this subject?

Mr. Morris: We are certainly not seeking to avoid a debate on this benefit. I would welcome it. It is not for me to reply to the question of allocation of parliamentary time. The hon. Member has made his point, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take it fully into account.

Family Income Supplement

Mrs. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reduce to 24 hours the minimum working week for FIS claimants.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): No, Sir. Family income supplement is intended to provide assistance to low-income working families in full-time work, and I have no intention of introducing a disincentive to full-time work. Assistance for low-income families unable to work full-time is available through the supplementary benefit scheme.

Mrs. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that this is a very disappointing reply, particularly in view of replies given previously, which suggested that this idea was under active consideration. Is he aware that there are many families who would benefit from this, and that it would not be such an expensive reform for his Department? There would be a saving on supplementary benefit if a person with family responsibilities could claim family income supplement when he or she had a three-quarter-time job.

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend may have misunderstood the situation. We are

considering a proposal, which was one of the suggestions of the Finer Committee, that there should be an easement in the number of hours of full-time work for FIS payment for one-parent families.

Mr. McCrindle: Should not the Government cast aside their prejudices about the use of FIS and use it much more as an instrument to combat family poverty? Although this is a means-tested benefit, the fact is that it is paid to people in work. This is some sort of answer to the abuses of social security benefits of which we have seen so much recently.

Mr. Deakins: We have taken steps to uprate FIS in line with the rise in the cost of living, but there are other ways of dealing with the problems of low incomes. One of these ways is to see that low pay is increased in many industries?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When does the Minister expect the consultations to which he has previously referred to be completed?

Mr. Deakins: I am sorry to say they will not be completed this side of the Summer Recess, so I will not be able to make any announcement before the House rises. We have to consider this proposal, which is one with which we have a great deal of sympathy, but we also have to take account of public expenditure considerations.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is not the right answer to bring in a generous child endowment and phase out means-tested benefits altogether?

Mr. Deakins: In the long term, the answer will be the putting together of the social security system, the tax system, and the system of low pay. However, we do not have the time to do that just at the moment.

Cash Credits

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his plans for the payment of cash credits in retirement.

Mr. Orme: The Government have made a number of substantial improvements in benefits for the retired and have on the statute book a new scheme for earnings-related pensions. My right hon.


Friend has no other proposals at the present time.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but has he read Labour's Programme for 1976, showing as it does proposals for cash benefits for those over retirement age? Does that not show a remarkable similarity to the tax credit scheme put forward by the Conservative Party?

Mr. Orme: There are many excellent suggestions in Labour's programme for 1976. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the point to the attention of the House. The matter that he raises will have to be discussed in future policy, but there is no immediate intention to introduce such a scheme.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend add up all the requests for extra public expenditure made by the Opposition this afternon and publish the results in the Official Report?

Mr. Orme: I am afraid that I would have to add a lot of noughts to the figures that we already have.

Mr. Boscawen: Before the right hon. Gentleman adds any new benefits to the statute book, will he consider meeting the obligations promised to the pensioners in the Social Security Act 1975, to raise pensions in line with prices?

Mr. Orme: The pensions increase this November will take pensions to their highest ever level and will cushion pensions against the effects of the current cost of living.

Mr. Loyden: My right hon. Friend was asked what consideration was being given to additional benefits. Will he state what the Department intends to do to offset the effects of increased fuel costs on the aged and other groups, and what the Department can do in the forthcoming winter to alleviate the problem?

Mr. Orme: There is a later Question on this subject on the Order Paper. The matter is under active consideration.

Family Allowances

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for a publicity campaign to explain and invite claims for

the introduction of family allowances for the first child in April 1977.

Mr. Ennals: As the hon. Member will appreciate, family allowances will be abolished from next April and will be replaced by child benefit under the Child Benefit Act 1975. Only families who are not receiving family allowances now will have to claim child benefit for the first child. There will be an extensive publicity campaign, starting in the late summer, including national newspapers and magazine advertising, leaflets and posters.

Mr. Clarke: Surely the Minister will not be advertising his proposals under the name of child benefit when they are really only the old taxed family allowance arrangements. Will he say when the working party set up by the Government with the TUC and the Labour Party will report, so that Parliament may be let back in on the act of deciding how best to get out of the Government's disastrous attempts to abandon the Child benefit scheme? Will he confirm, before the working party has reported, that the Prime Minister's first angry statement that nothing could be contemplated before 1979 is now completely abandoned by the Government?

Mr. Ennals: The working party, which includes representatives of the Government, the TUC, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the national executive committee, has had a number of meetings. I hope that it will be possible to make known to the House its conclusions and any further conclusions that the Government may reach. The question of child benefit is due for consideration in the House on Friday, and I shall take the opportunity then of informing the House. On the first part of the question, of course the benefit that is being introduced next year for the first child is part of and flows from the Child Benefit Act. It is known that the Government are committed to the introduction in full of child benefit. This is the first step.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Since a mass advertising campaign is to take place later this year, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why that campaign could not have taken place earlier this year, because it would then have explained to the TUC and the unions generally the


relationship between the transfer from pay packet to purse which we have heard so much about?

Mr. Ennals: The advertising later this year is designed to encourage families to apply for the benefit for the first child. It is not a political advertising campaign; it is a campaign designed to encourage all those who are entitled to child benefit to apply for it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is it really the case that for this new family allowance scheme, the Government will use the same leaflet as would have been used for the real child benefit, putting in a correction slip to say that, after all, the tax allowances will not be withdrawn?

Mr. Ennals: If that is another demand for additional public expenditure, I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's approach. We produced a leaflet of which 13 million copies were printed. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should produce another leaflet, rather than use the existing one and include an information slip, he must accept that that would be extremely costly. He is asking for more public expenditure. The information slip drawing attention to the changes will be issued with the leaflet.

Mrs. Castle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the keynote of the child benefit scheme is the transfer from pay packet to purse in the interests of the mother? Would it not be extraordinarily confusing if my right hon. Friend insisted on continuing to call the extension of family allowances the introduction of child benefit? If he continues with the approach will he not make it much more difficult for us to educate people on what is involved in the child benefit scheme?

Mr. Ennals: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend adopts that attitude, because both she and I are committed to the introduction in full of child benefits. She recognises that the first step is that which will be taken in April, that other steps will follow, and that this process should be seen by the public as progress towards full implementation of the Government's commitment to the child benefit scheme.

Royal College of Nursing

Mr. Fell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet the Royal College of Nursing.

Mr. Jim Spicer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next intends to visit the Royal College of Nursing.

Mr. Ennals: I met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing on 19th May and they know that I am very willing to meet them as and when there is need.

Mr. Fell: How is the suggested growth rate of 6 per cent. in the district nursing service and the health visitors' service to be achieved within the present budget? Where will the nurses come from?

Mr. Ennals: There is no problem about where the nurses will come from; there is a steady increase in the number of nurses and midwives in the NHS. It is estimated that in September this year there will be 20,000 more nurses and midwives, or their whole-time equivalent, than there were two years before. We do not have a problem in the recruitment of nurses, and there has been a good intake into nurses' training schools. I share the concern of all those who want to see a sufficient number of health visitors and district nurse tutors.

Mr. Spicer: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the representatives of the Royal College, will he discuss with them the increasing tendency to bypass the joint consultative committees and for unilateral action to be taken by the trade unions, rather than their using these committees? This matter is of increasing concern to the Royal College and to all Members of this House and the public. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving guidance to the area health authorities on the action they should take when this practice occurs?

Mr. Ennals: As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) on 27th May, the present arrangements for local joint staff consultation committees in the NHS embodied in the general Whitley Council agreement do not distinguish between affiliated trade unions and professional


organisations. I understand that these arrangements are reflected in individual committees, but I am aware that there have been difficulties in a few places. My advice to the health authority is that since participation must be on an entirely voluntary basis it must negotiate with its staff the most effective arrangements appropriate to local circumstances.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of the total nursing personnel in the health service are coloured, from the New Commonwealth? Will he take advantage of this question to pay tribute to the noble work that they are doing?

Mr. Ennals: I am afraid that I cannot give the figures. I am not certain whether they would be available from the lists of those who have been taken into employment. Colour is not a consideration. I pay warm tribute to the service given to the National Health Service by nurses from many parts of the world. I think that it has to be said that it would be difficult to provide the services in National Health Service hospitals today were it not for the admirable work done by people from many parts of the world, particularly from Commonwealth countries.

Mrs. Chalker: Is the Secretary of State aware that he gave a weak answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer)? Is he further aware that there is extreme disquiet among nurses, who in some area health authorities are not even getting equal treatment with other employees in the National Health Service? Will he undertake to do something rather more positive about it than he has been able to do so far?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Lady is getting very worked up. I shall give an additional answer to that which I gave the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I have said that there continues to be a steady increase in the number of nurses in the National Health Service. The hon. Lady will know that the review of public expenditure shows a continuing expansion, or a continuing rate of growth, in the service. That includes nurses. No doubt the House, including the hon. Lady, will have noted, in the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on public

expenditure cuts for 1977–78, that no inroad has been made into the revenue expenses of the National Health Service. They have been absolutely protected.

Death Grant

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will undertake a review of the rate of the death grant when the results of the Price Commission's survey of funeral costs are made known; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Deakins: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will have regard to the commission's findings, but any possible improvement in the rate of the death grant must necessarily be weighed against other competing claims on scarce resources.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents accepted responsibility for burying a deceased relative of no fixed abode, and that the funeral, consisting of a hearse, cortege, one car, the funeral parlour and crematorium expenses, amounted to £104, at early 1975 prices? All that she received was £30. In view of the high cost of dying, should not the grant be increased substantially and immediately?

Mr. Deakins: The grant has never covered all the expenses connected with a funeral. Although it has been increased only twice since 1949, it still makes a modest contribution to the overall cost. If my hon. Friend's constituent had been on supplementary benefit or, alternatively, not in full-time work but with an income slightly above supplementary benefit level, she could have received assistance from the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Mr. George Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that if a sick or elderly person died who had been befriended and cared for by a neighbour or friend rather than a relative, that person would not qualify for death grant? Does he not think that that is disgraceful?

Mr. Deakins: That is bound to happen, because we have a contributory scheme for the death grant. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should replace the contributory death grant by a means-tested benefit, that is something that we should object to very strongly.

Area Health Authorities

Mr. Mudd: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is considering any reorganisation plans for area health authorities.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir, but I have asked the area health authorities and the regional health authorities to consider ways of securing economies in their management costs. I await their proposals.

Mr. Mudd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but does he not agree that the BMA is seeking to refer the junior hospital doctors' dispute to the Prime Minister? Does that not indicate the degree of malaise that exists and the profession's loss of faith in his Department, from his own level down to area health authorities?

Mr. Ennals: I believe that it was a useful discussion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I had with the medical profession. It is true that it has a number of worries. Some of them are linked with the reorganisation of the Health Service, while some are linked with the inevitable difficulties of pay policy. There are other problems as well. These matters were raised with my right hon. Friend. It was an extremely productive and frank meeting. The mood of the meeting was helpful. I believe that it augurs well for the operation of bridge-building and for creating a better atmosphere between the Government and the profession, which is of vital importance.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the special problems of area health authorities? The Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark area, for example, has three teaching hospitals and the authority is now being called upon to take a balancing decision between teaching hospital costs and community hospitals, such as the Sydenham Children's Hospital, in my constituency.

Mr. Ennals: There are such problems, and there are problems that arise from the redistribution of resources between regions to ensure that the deprived regions get a more adequate share of revenue funds than the better endowed ones. That

produces some problems, but it means that we are easing the problems in the boroughs that have been under-provided.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Reverting to the question of junior doctors, does the right hon. Gentleman accept outside any question of pay policy, that some junior doctors will be worse off under the new contract? Will he now say publicly that there will be a no-detriment clause, so as to avoid that difficulty, which has given rise to much of the bitterness?

Mr. Ennals: I do not think that it has given rise to much of the bitterness. I think that only a small number of doctors will be getting less than before under the new contract. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would look into this question. We have to recognise that, on average, junior hospital doctors have received an increase of slightly under £800 from the new contract, compared with the previous one. That is a satisfactory settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to make a ministerial broadcast on his Government's economic policy.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister how many ministerial broadcasts he has made since he took office.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to announce the date for his next ministerial broadcast.

Mr. Stott: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to make a ministerial broadcast.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have made one ministerial broadcast and will make another at an appropriate time.

Mr. MacGregor: When he does so, and bearing in mind the importance of local authority expenditure in relation to the Government's economic policy, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that in relation to possible cutbacks in local authority grants next year he will not allow the Secretary of State for the Environment to pursue a policy of hitting


prudent local authorities instead of spendthrift authorities, which include many Labour-controlled ones—for example, Haringey? Would it not be wholly unfair that the prudent should suffer for the sins and actions of the spendthrift?

The Prime Minister: I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for a broadcast, but I am not sure that that complicated subject will be best disposed of in the course of such a broadcast. There is a problem here, in that the Government have control, through loan sanction, over capital expenditure but not over local authority current expenditure. The word "spendthrift" is hardly the correct one to apply, because in many cases the local authorities concerned are meeting desirable and necessary social needs. However, it is clear that if some local authorities attempt to keep within the Government's recommended limits and others do not, a general block grant will bear unfairly on those who keep within the limits. That is the real problem that we should consider. Between now and next April my right hon. Friend will be able to have discussions about remedying it.

Mr. Ashley: In his next broadcast, will my right hon. Friend take time off from refuting the economic nonsense talked by Opposition Members and by some of my hon. Friends and refer to the plight of one of the most underprivileged groups in Britain, namely, the single-parent families? Does he realise that there are no fewer than nine Ministers grappling with the 230 recommendations of the Finer Report, and that they are not doing very well at it? In fact, I believe that they are butchering the report, and that my right hon. Friend's personal intervention is required so as to get the nine Ministers to undertake collective action to try to help single-parent families.

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I have not personally looked at this matter, but I undertake to do so in the long weeks of the recess that lie ahead, when I shall have a chance to reflect on more constructive aspects of Government policy than we hear from Opposition Members.

Mr. Latham: Has not the existing scheme, under which building societies

are supposed to make up the Government cut-back in local authority mortgages, proved a complete farce? Why, therefore, are the Government doing it all over again? Why does not the Prime Minister make a broadcast to tell the simple truth, which is that the Government have cut the housing programme?

The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for the Environment and the building societies had a meeting last week and, I believe, issued a joint statement on the way in which they will try to help would-be house owners. As I read the statement, it seemed to me to be very satisfactory, and I hope that the building societies will carry it out.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for supporters of the Labour movement the real test of the economic management of Britain is whether the Government can get down the present rate of unemployment and, if necessary, engage in greater public expenditure to tackle it, as capitalism and non-Socialist measures certainly cannot?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we regard the present level of unemployment as too high. I hope that before the House rises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be able to bring forward further measures for tackling unemployment, so as to help the situation.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minisster explain, in a broadcast or by some other means, why the increased payroll tax will not be regionally varied to take account of the different unemployment position in different parts of the country?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think that I shall be able to explain that in a ministerial broadcast. The Cabinet took a decision that it should apply nationally.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the Prime Minister's Government have just announced a payroll tax of £1,000 million, at a time of record unemployment, will the Prime Minister in his next ministerial broadcast tell the nation who it was who said that such a payroll tax would both intensify the depression and increase the growth of unemployment? Does he still agree with that view?

The Prime Minister: I rather suspect that that is a catch question. I might have said it myself some time ago.

Mrs. Thatcher: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: Thank heavens for that. I thought that one of my past misdeeds as Chancellor of the Exchequer was coming out. I shall wait with bated breath to hear who said it, and then I shall know what value to place upon it. The Chancellor put forward the proposal because he thought that it was the best way of meeting the objective that has been pressed upon us by the Opposition, namely—[Interruption.]—Hon. Members have not yet heard what the objective is—namely, to reduce the borrowing requirement, and this is one way of doing it.

Mrs. Thatcher: If I may put the Prime Minister out of his misery, the words were said by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when he was shadow Chancellor, shortly before the Prime Minister took over from him as shadow Chancellor, at a time when unemployment was only 321,000, under a Conservative Government. Now, unemployment is nearly 1½ million. Surely, when he imposes a payroll tax at that level the Prime Minister cannot escape the charge of his party being the natural party of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is too young to be living in the past like this. It is all very well for me to reminisce, but it is not for the right hon. Lady to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] That is only the hors d'oeuvre; we are coming to the meat. On the serious part of the supplementary question about the level of unemployment, the right hon. Lady has a real point of substance when she says that no Government should be proud of the level of unemployment in this country, a problem that is shared—I do not use this as an excuse, but it is a factor that should be taken into account—throughout the Western industrial world. We are struggling to overcome it, and I trust that we shall do so. But there are always conflicting objects and objectives of any policy. My aim and that of the Government is that we should endeavour, by means of the combined approach we are making with other Gov-

ernments and by our own actions, to reduce unemployment to 3 per cent. by 1979—and I hope that we shall get general support for that policy.

BRADFORD

Mr. Cryer: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Bradford.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he would be very welcome, especially in Keighley? Will he say how the proposed public expenditure cuts will affect Bradford, whose textile industry is already deeply troubled because of the lack of proper import controls? Will he also explain how expenditure cuts will help to regenerate British industry when the announcement has caused the CBI to announce a strike of capital? What will my right hon. Friend do to answer the CBI?

The Prime Minister: I know the position of Bradford; I looked it up specially in anticipation of this supplementary question. It is true that the textile and clothing industries are being protected both by EEC agreements negotiated over the past 18 months under the GATT Multi-Fibre Arrangement and by others. We have reinforced these agreements in particular cases by our own controls against cotton yarn from Portugal, Spain, Greece and Turkey, and woollen suits from Eastern Europe. I am told that this means that virtually all disruptive imports of textiles and clothing from low-cost sources are now subject to control.
The Chancellor indicated in his statement that either he or the Secretary of State for Trade would be very willing to discuss this matter further with the industry. I wish to emphasise that there should be no ideological objection to import controls in the present situation. They stand under the general lines of policy that we have indicated before. We do not refute them as a matter of ideology, although we believe that, on balance, the world is better off if it can do without them.
In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, I was disappointed with Lord Watkinson's reaction on the


question of investment by industry. I had thought that we should get a different response from him, but I hope to be having conversations with him about it.

Mr. Baker: Will the Prime Minister tell the House—as he is now a latter-day convert to open government—what in any event we shall learn from the Treasury in two or three months' time, namely, how much standby credit has been used to support the pound?

The Prime Minister: I am not overly a convert to open Government. I think that it has its place. For example, there are secrets that are better kept within the family, for several reasons. On the general issue—I am sorry, what was it?

Mr. Baker: Standby credit.

The Prime Minister: I wanted to dismiss it from my mind. It was a clear case of a Freudian slip. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are published under well-defined rules, and it does not help the position of currencies that are under attack—whether it be the franc, sterling or any other currency—for day-to-day attention to be concentrated on them. What is needed now is a period of steadiness in the money market.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Whether or not my right hon. Friend goes to Bradford, will he spend the Summer Reces totting up the suggestions for public expenditure cuts made by the Conservative Party, to see which is the natural party of unemployment from the consequences of those suggestions?

The Prime Minister: On the whole, do not think that Question Time is a fruitful time in which to attack the Opposition. It is their job to attack me.
This afternoon in Question Time I listened to demands for additional expenditure on at least three different objects. The child benefit scheme was one. [Interruption.] The Opposition cannot speak for those who ask the questions. I was here during Question Time. Some of those who now interrupt me were not present then.
Invalidity benefit was another object of the proposed increased expenditure. The third escapes me for the moment, but there were at least three proposals this afternoon.
I add to that the speech that we are promised by the Leader of the Opposition at the weekend, calling for additional defence expenditure. I am waiting with great interest to read that. I add to that the fact that the Opposition spokesman for research policy is in favour of a much larger amount of unemployment. I think that the nation will soon be able to draw its own conclusions about the hypocrisy of the Opposition.

Mr. Prior: Will the Prime Minister give guidance for his view that the Conservative Party spokesman for research is in favour of high unemployment, in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) told the Government in 1974 that if they did not cut public expenditure unemployment would go up? Since that time, unemployment has doubled.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; the evidence is contained in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which was reported in the Sunday Telegraph.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is now over.

SECONDARY EDUCATION (TAMESIDE)

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the perverse and misguided decision of the Court of Appeal yesterday, has the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter is sub judice. I should have thought that the hon. Member would realise that.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be no further point of order on that matter.

Mr. Christopher Price: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If this point of order is on an entirely different subject I shall take it, but I shall not take a point of order on Tameside.

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to mention Tameside. I did wish—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will not try to skirt round the


question, as that would be of no use to the House. There is a great deal of business. There is a timetable motion. We must be fair and get on to the business as quickly as possible.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he cannot raise any point relating to Tameside this afternoon.

Mr. Christopher Price: I shall not mention Tameside.
In 1972 the Select Committee on Procedure introduced into the House a motion, which was passed, about sub judice rules which required you, Mr. Speaker, to take those rules into account in taking decisions about whether matters could be commented on. I have a submission to make that the Tameside case—

Mr. Speaker: Order. First, I have not come to the House unprepared. I have spent some time considering this matter. I am not prepared to take points on that issue. The hon. Member had best try another occasion on which to raise the matter.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there have been occasions within your memory, and within those of all Members of Parliament, when an hon. Member has been allowed at least to make a submission and state his case in general terms before the Chair made the decision whether he was allowed to make a submission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I continue? I have not finished my point of order. I am not in the habit of making points of order every Monday and every Friday. I have not finished my point of order today and I intend to finish it if the Chair allows me to do so.
On numerous occasions hon. Members been allowed to make submissions. The Chair has not said that as the matter had been studied by the Chair the submission could not be heard. I therefore respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to accord the same right to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you make a ruling on that matter, Mr. Speaker, I should like,

in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said, to say that there have been many similar examples during the period that I have been a Member of this House. I should like to draw your attention specifically to the fact that during a not dissimilar incident—namely local authorities versus central Government—I was to some extent involved in the Clay Cross affair. Lord Denning was also involved, although he came to a different conclusion on that occasion. But the point I want you to remember, Mr. Speaker, is this—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Skinner: When this matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should resume his seat when I stand. I want the hon. Member to state his point of order as politely as he can.

Mr. Skinner: One thing is certain. I shall not grovel.
Whether or not the Clay Cross matter was sub judice, during its course it was nevertheless mentioned time and time again in this Chamber, despite the fact that the case went to the same people. It went to Lord Denning. It went through the same process as this matter. I believe that it should be a matter for our concern in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member and to the others who have made their points of order. The House has given me discretion in this matter. I am exercising that discretion. There can be no question this afternoon of my changing my mind on it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: To save the time of the House, I propose, unless there is an objection, to put the Questions on the five motions relating to Statutory Instruments together.

Ordered,
That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]
That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Tea) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]


That the Draft Weights and Measures (Flour and Oat Products) (Exemption) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]
That the Draft Weights and Measures (Potatoes) (Exemption) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]
That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 2) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

NATIONAL SERVICE

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Waver-tree): I beg to move,
that leave be given to bring in a Bill to train unemployed school leavers by creating new opportunities to involve them in neighbourhood work, community care and service to others.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), who is introducing the Bill, assure us that in this case the Bill—unlike the three Bills which he has previously introduced in this Session—will eventually, if the House gives leave, be printed?

Mr. Steen: I took instructions, knowing of the hon. Gentleman's objections. I gather that it is normal to print the Bills. I took the view that as my Bills were unlikely to reach the statute book it was a waste of public expenditure to cause them to be printed.

Mr. Speaker: May I help the hon. Gentleman? He can help the House if he will get to his Ten-Minute Bill as quickly as he can, because there is a timetable motion before the House.

Mr. Steen: There is growing suspicion as to the Government's intentions about tackling unemployment among school leavers. The Government protest too much. They say they are doing all that is possible. They say it is a short-term problem. They say that it will go away. It will not.
The statistics tell the story. In August 1970, 39,000 school leavers were registered as unemployed. Under the Tory Administration, the figures stayed fairly constant, dropping in August 1973 to 23,000. They started to rise again under Labour. In 1974, 59,000 school leavers were unemployed. In 1975, 165,000 school leavers were unemployed. In July of this year, 209,000 school leavers were unemployed. The figure will go higher.
What are the Government doing? One can give them credit for only one thing. They are experts in spending other people's money, because £415 million has already been frittered away on palliatives. When will the Government acknowledge some fundamental truths?
First, the Government must stop playing the rôle of father figure—

Mr. Robert Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the hon. Gentleman got up to move a Ten-Minute Bill. All I have heard so far is an abuse of the privilege of introducing a Bill. The hon. Gentleman has made a direct attack on Government policy. If that is to be the procedure, Mr. Speaker, it will mean that the Ten-Minute Bill procedure will be constantly abused by hon. Members on both sides. That would be a very sad thing. I have not heard a word yet as to what the Bill is about.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will now outline the purposes of his Bill.

Mr. Steen: I hope that the interruption will not be counted against my 10 minutes.
The Government must stop playing the rôle of father figure, overlord and provider. This not only undermines the work ethic but robs the young of their independence and sense of initiative. [Interruption.] If you bothered to listen you might learn something.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening but I do not know whether I am learning. Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to outline the purposes of his Bill? I know that he wants to be fair to the House.

Mr. Steen: The National Service Bill aims to eliminate the damage currently being done by the Government to school leavers, by giving them something meaningful and relevant to do, and on their own terms.
The Bill has a three-pronged attack. The first prong is to establish a national initiative programme run by the young themselves, giving every school leaver the chance to create his own work experience either by personal social service or by undertaking practical community work to improve the quality of life and the facilities in his neighbourhood. The possibilities are infinite. Every hon. Member will know the social distress and needs in his constituency which could be tackled to improve the quality of life there.
The second prong is for the Government to appeal by direct advertisement through the media, laying down a challenge to the whole community. Industry, small business and individuals alike would be asked to make available opportunities for job training and learning experience for young people. It would be an appeal to every citizen to involve young people in his work.
The third prong—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill and to say what is going into the Bill, when the same hon. Member has already introduced three such Bills which have never seen the light of day? Not a single printed Bill has appeared. Is not the hon. Gentleman using the House as a means for getting across meaningless verbiage? If hon. Members are really concerned and serious, the Ten-Minute Rule procedure can result—as it has in the past—in Bills being put on the statute book. May we ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the House? Cannot the hon. Member be asked whether he intends to produce a Bill?

Mr. James Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a gross abuse of the procedure of the House that Government Members should seek to interrupt my hon. Friend by bogus points of order? Should they not leave to the Chair the decision whether my hon. Friend is in order, instead of themselves raising bogus points of order?

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remarked on Friday 16th July that the hon. Member's three previous Bills could not be objected to because they have never been put forward in print, but some six weeks before that, because I could not find him, I informed his Whips that I would raise the issue. I pointed out that he had six weeks in which to present any one of those three Bills. I have had letters from constituents—as, no doubt, have other hon. Members—asking where the hon. Member's Bills are. These constituents believe that the Bills exist because leave was given by the House to introduce them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I am sorry to take up the time


of the House. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether previous Bills have been printed is not a matter for me. The Ten-Minute Bill procedure is quite straightforward. It is not unknown for it to be used as a means of putting forward a specific point of view which is not acceptable on all sides of the House. I have known this to be done by hon. Members on both sides of the House. But the argument must be directed to the terms of the Bill that the hon. Gentleman is seeking leave to introduce. It must not be a general debate on Government policy or anything else.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I understood your ruling correctly, you said that it was in order to use the Ten-Minute Bill procedure to put forward a point of view, and not necessarily, therefore, in order to produce a Bill. Did you, in fact, mean that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman gained that impression from what I said, I clearly was not expressing myself as forcibly as I should. But within the context of a Ten-Minute Bill there is often controversy. That is why such Bills are often opposed. I ask the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) to realise that he is taking the time of the House. The points of order are also taking a lot of time.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) by implication accused Members of discourtesy. May I point out that there have been no points of order interrupting other Members who have introduced Ten-Minute Bills, even if they were regarded as controversial?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I quickly correct—

Mr. Speaker: May I seek to help the hon. Gentleman? I hope that he has a genuine point of order. Correcting other Members' points of order is my responsibility, not his.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I simply say that last week I raised a point of order on a Ten-Minute Bill and was shot down

about three times in quick succession. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is getting very unruly. May we continue the Ten-Minute Bill? Mr. Steen.

Mr. Steen: It is important that we correct the record because hon. Members opposite have given an incorrect view. They have said that three Bills have been introduced. Only one Bill has been introduced on unemployment and that had nothing to do with the subject which I am discussing this afternoon. I wish to ask that leave be given to introduce this Bill.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Kinnock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall speak with great brevity, especially since the hon. Member's remarks, though abbreviated, were still much too long for common sense. He spent the first few minutes of his introduction to the Bill on a general and, in terms of the rules of order of this House, over which you preside, Mr. Speaker, highly objectionable use of the Ten-Minutes Rule Bill procedure for the purpose of a partisan attack. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Burden, on a point of order.

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Ten-Minute Rule Bills are introduced, hon. Members on either side of the House who object to them should divide the House and show their opposition in the Lobby rather than raise bogus points of order.

Mr. Speaker: That is the old-fashioned way and it has worked very well.

Mr. Kinnock: You and I are both old-fashioned boys, Mr. Speaker. Though I could not be thought of as perhaps one of the least partisan Members of the House, it appears to me that we shall be going off at something of a tangent if, generally speaking, we use the Ten-Minute Rule Bill procedure for that purpose.
If I may speak specifically on the question of an initiative programme, at very best it sounds like an echo of a 1930 semi-Fascist corporate State programme, and at very worst it is a genuine Fascist corporate State programme. The idea of using public resources to issue challenges—and what a virile sounding word "challenge" is?—to the community to help youngsters in this way is a most outrageous misinterpretation of the situation that confronts unemployed young people in Britain today. They do not want this kind of help. They do not want the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) or anybody else to manufacture synthetic employment opportunities for them, nor do they want to enjoy national

Division No. 281.]
AYES
3.54 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael


Banks, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom


Beith, A. J.
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John


Benyon, W.
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Pardoe, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Buck, Antony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Budgen, Nick
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carlisle, Mark
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kimball, Marcus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cockcroft, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cordle, John H.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Scolt-Hopkins, James


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Corrie, John
Lawson, Nigel
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Luce, Richard
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacGregor, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Madel, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mates, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Wakeham, John


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dennis


Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mills, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hon George


Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)



Griffiths, Eldon
Morgan, Geraint
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Mr. Anthony Steen and


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David
Mr. Leon Brittan.


Hannam, John
Neave, Airey





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Armstrong, Ernest
Atkinson, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Ashley, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Archer, Peter
Ashton, Joe
Bates, Alf

charity. They want real work, and if the hon. Gentleman were interested in that he would not be engaging himself in stupid abuses of the House such as this, or in any other gimmick, using his constituents for purposes of personal propaganda. He would be on this side of the House, against hon. Gentlemen opposite, striving to reflate the economy so that working-class youngsters in our society could have real work to do.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 183.

Bean, R. E.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Price, William (Rugby)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Reid, George


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Henderson, Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bishop, E. S.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Huckfield, Les
Robinson, Geoffrey


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rowlands, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sandelson, Neville


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sedgemore, Brian


Carter, Ray
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Selby, Harry


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Conlan, Bernard
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Corbett, Robin
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sillars, James


Crawford, Douglas
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Small, William


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, Arthur
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
McDonald, Miss Oonagh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Swain, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Edge, Geoff
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)
Magee, Bryan
Thompson, George


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mahon, Simon
Tinn, James


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tomlinson, John


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hellish, Rt Hon Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mendelson, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, John (Newton)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ward, Michael


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Watkins, David


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Watkinson, John


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moyle, Roland
Whitehead, Phillip


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wigley, Dafydd


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Goldlng, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gould, Bryan
Ovenden, John
Woodall, Alec


Gourlay, Harry
Padley, Walter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Palmer, Arthur
Young, David (Bolton E)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Park, George



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John
Mr. Russell Kerr and


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Stan Thorne.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your assistance on behalf of the House? You are in charge of the Clerks of the House, and I ask you whether, after consultation with the Leader of the House and the Shadow Leader of the House, you will make it clear that the House has made it plain that it does not wish to give leave to introduce Bills that in fact are never

introduced, even on subjects in respect of which it might be sympathetic. May I ask you to have the appropriate consultations to see that this practice does not occur again?

Mr. Speaker: This is another matter that could be referred to the Procedure Committee. It is not a matter for me. The sooner the Procedure Committee starts work, the better.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Report [22nd July] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Report considered accordingly.
That the allotted days which under the Order [20th July] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below, and, subject to the Provision of that Order, each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table:

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of Proceedings


First day
Re-committal
6.00 p.m.



New Clauses 1 to 4
8.00 p.m.



Remaining New Clauses and Amendments to Clause 1
11.00 p.m.


Second day
Amendments to Clause 2 up to and including any Amend ments to line 11 on page 4
6.00 p.m.



Amendments to Clauses 2 to 18 so far as not already disposed of 
11.00 p.m.


Third day
Amendments to Clauses 19 to 55 and Schedule 1, and Amendments to Schedule 2 down to and including any Amendment to line 14 on page 75
6.00 p.m.



Any Amendments down to the end of line 18 on page 75
7.40 p.m.



Any Amendments down to the end of line 19 on page 75
8.00 p.m.



Any Amendments down to the end of line 27 on page 75
8.20 p.m.



Any Amendments down to the end of line 4 on page 77
8.40 p.m.



Any Amendments to insert words at the end of line 4 on page 77
9.00 p.m.



Remaining Amendments to Schedule 2 and Amendments to Schedules 3 to 7
9.20 p.m.



Third Reading
11.00 p.m.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.—[Mr. Coleman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the following Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Varley, namely—

(a) the Amendment in Schedule 1 at page 74, line 29; and
(b) the Amendments in Schedule 2 at—
page 76, line 41;
page 77, line 39; and
page 78, line 2.—[Mr. Varley.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Schedule 1

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

4.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric Varley): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 74, line 29, leave out 'include rotary-wing aircraft' and insert
'include—

(a) hovercraft;
(b) lighter than air aircraft;
(c) rotary-wing aircraft;
(d) non-motorised and motorised gliders;
(e) aircraft designed to fly unmanned; and
(f) replicas of aircraft of historic interest.'.

The Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. Varley: I do not think that I need to spend much time on this group of amendments as the principal reasons for tabling them have already been debated at some length on previous occasions.
On 26th May, Mr. Speaker ruled that the Bill was prima facie hybrid because of a point of doubt whether the mobile offshore drilling rig, the "Key Victoria", was a ship for the purposes of the Bill and whether Marathon Shipbuilding (UK) Ltd. was wrongly excluded from Part I of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are designed to put the point beyond doubt by defining "ship" in such a way as to exclude without question mobile rigs such as the "Key Victoria".
Paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 2 defines a shipbuilding company. One part of that definition is that it had, on 31st July 1974, an interest in possession in a shipyard which on that date was being used for the construction of ships. By excluding the "Key Victoria" from the definition of "ship" in paragraph 6 of Part II, these amendments define the class of shipbuilding companies in a way that excludes companies making only mobile offshore drilling rigs at that date. The amendment is precise, though general in effect. It removes the point of doubt which Mr. Speaker ruled existed.
It is not for me to enter again into the question whether the Bill was hybrid. The House has determined that, however that may be, it is to proceed as a Public Bill. These amendments, which, during the debate on 27th May, we promised we would table, clarify this point, confirm that the Bill deals with genuine classes of companies as defined in the schedule, and will allow the House, and in due course another place, to consider the Bill on its merits and on the crucial issues with which it seeks to deal.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 also deal with other technical points of definition. Amendment No. 1 aims simply to exclude remote and minute doubts that those who may seek to delay the Bill further might raise on the definition of "aircraft" and companies making them.
In the normal course of events perhaps it would not be necessary to move these amendments. But if doubts can exist whether the "Key Victoria" is a ship then people may think that hovercrafts are aircraft, ships or a hybrid of the two, or that lighter-than-air aircraft such as hot air balloons are aircraft, or that model aircraft should qualify. For instance, my clear and categorical legal advice is that a hovercraft is not an aircraft or a ship. But the point has been raised, in the course of an exhaustive re-examination of the Bill for points of possible hybridity, and rather than risk further damaging delay, we propose to lay it to rest now.
Removing the word "converting" in Amendment No. 2 is another example. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, having told us that Marathon produced ships, some hon. Members will perhaps claim that Marathon is in the business of ship repairing. I can assure hon. Members, if they need assurance on


such a point, that this is not so. For instance, there is no question of Marathon meeting the criteria in Subsection (3)(1)(b) of Schedule 2. However, during 1974, it did undertake a conversion, a one-off job, taken on solely to avoid redundancies. As the removal of the word "converting" does not affect the repairers named in the schedule we felt it only charitable to make this amendment and to remove any possible confusion that hon. Members opposite might have about Marathon being a ship repairing company.
These amendments seek to establish the position not just beyond reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt—without being all-seeing and all-knowing, which we are not. But we have done our best to cover even the most far-fetched eventualities. I apologise to hon. Members who may feel that I have taken too much time in stating the obvious. We have, at least, tried to learn from the fact that similar points have lost us a lot of time in the past and we want to avoid the danger of any such delays in the future.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Secretary of State is undoubtedly correct in suggesting that he has done his best in redrafting the hybridity provisions of this legislation. I do not think that any hon. Member has any doubts that the underlying issues that we are discussing today arise from the deal that was done in 1973, which, in spirit, if not in practice, inevitably made this a hybrid Bill.
I do not know whether the amendments that the Secretary of State has moved have succeeded in making the position as clear as he would want. That is not the purpose of the speech that I want to make. Doubtless we shall consider that with care, and doubtless it will be considered with care in another place. The important question is why the Secretary of State is moving these amendments at all. That is the point to which I wish to devote my remarks.
The fact is that in 1973, as the House knows, the Marathon Company of America was considering whether or not to invest on the Clyde, with the obviously desirable consequence that jobs would be saved and an ongoing business created. The major obstacle to its coming was the fact that the shipbuilding industry was threatened with nationalisation. The com-

pany knew that, not because the Government of the day intended to nationalise the shipbuilding industry but because the Labour Party, in its traditional and irresponsible posture in Opposition, was making threats not only about the shipbuilding industry but in respect of a whole range of other industries within the British economy. That is precisely what parts of the Labour movement are now doing, in and out of government. It is a well-worn phenomenon in terms of the debilitation of British industry.
4.15 p.m.
It is perfectly understandable that the American company asked for assurances that in the event of its coming to Britain its enterprise and initiative would not consequentially lead to nationalisation. It was easy for the then Conservative Government to give the assurance that there would be no nationalisation, but the Labour Party in Opposition, faced with a simple choice whether or not they were overtly prepared to put their own party dogma above the interests of the workers on Clydeside, gave the same assurance. They would have given that assurance whether Marathon had been the producer of rigs or of any other form of vessel, or of ships, because, at that time, it was quite unacceptable, in popular terms, to argue that the threat of nationalisation would be a deterrent to the maintenance of jobs on Clydeside. A very firm commitment was given.
From the moment that commitment was given, in spirit this was going to be a hybrid Bill. There was no way round that position. The draftsmen in the Department of Industry were given the clearest instructions, when they had to draft the legislation, that Marathon should be excluded. In other words, a very precise instruction was given to leave out a company which otherwise, in the normal way of business, might easily have been included. It was, intentionally, a hybrid situation. It would have been perfectly easy for the Secretary of State for Industry, if this issue had been put to him at Second Reading, to have given exactly the same assurance as he is now giving to the House. He would have said "We have done our best to ensure that this is not a hybrid Bill. We have drafted legislation to put beyond all reasonable doubt that this Bill, as we understand it, is now non-hybrid."
That was the situation. But, of course, the Government got it all wrong. This is the upshot of what we now all too clearly understand. As a consequence of the diligence of my hop. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and, frankly, the carelessness of ministerial instructions, the Bill turned out to be a hybrid Bill. The first reaction was to pretend that this was not the case, but Mr. Speaker's ruling was that it was prima facie a hybrid Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, prima facie."] If the hon. Member wishes to rest on the words "prima facie", I would not dispute that. I merely make a factual observation that following Mr. Speaker's ruling that it was, prima facie, a hybrid Bill, there was no longer any possibility of the Government moving forward in any way without either redrafting the legislation or suspending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. They did both, because they believed that the dogma of nationalisation was more important than either the rights of the individuals concerned or the rights of the House of Commons. That was the decision they took a couple of months ago. Then having taken that decision, the one point that I wish to place beyond peradventure is that the Bill remains a hybrid Bill. In intention it is hybrid.
A party political deal, for party political reasons, was done to give special privileges to Marathon. It was done by the Labour Party in opposition and it is the intention of the Labour Government to honour that special deal between an American multinational company and the Government. That is what this debate is all about. The argument that the Secretary of State is putting to us is that, notwithstanding the fact that this was, prima facie, a hybrid Bill, and is still, it should nevertheless proceed along the traditional constitutional course.
In order to ensure that the issue is not raised again amendments are necessary, not to cope with the problems in this House, because they have already been coped with by suspending the Standing Orders but because the Secretary of State fears that when the Bill reaches another place the issues of hybridity will be governed not by the Standing Orders of this House but by the Standing Orders of another place, and it will be perfectly within its right

to decide whether or not it should treat the Bill as hybrid. It is necessary, not in any way to put right omissions in this House but to anticipate the dangers that may still face the legislation in another place. That is why the Secretary of State is moving these amendments today.
We resist these amendments, and I would not wish there to be any lingering doubt about why we do so. We think that it would be to the positive advantage of all concerned that the Select Committee procedure should come into play, so as to give people with a major interest in the legislation the opportunity to have their case heard. I think that this House would generally pursue its debates better, particularly its industrial policy debates, if there were much greater scrutiny of the Government than is possible at the moment.
On looking into the motor industry a Select Committee provided the House with a significant constitutional advance. It is no longer possible, faced with the questioning of a Select Committee, for Ministers to run to cover or to provide half-answers and evasive generalisations. They are pinned down, and can be kept pinned down for hour after hour, until the facts have emerged.
But under the procedures for examining public Bills of this sort, no such possibility exists. Certainly on Second Reading or in Standing Committee—as anyone knows who has read the proceedings on this Bill or any other—Ministers, in the end, can simply remain seated and rely on the votes behind them. They cannot do that under the Select Committee procedure. Consequently, the facts emerge, the debate is real, the judgments are informed. That is why, not only on this legislation—although this is a classic example of the improvements which can be obtained—we should serve the interests of this country much better if there were a Select Committee procedure.
I do not intend to pursue at great length the sort of argument that might emerge from a Select Committee inquiry, but I am at a loss to understand why, for example, Bristol Channel Ship Repairers should be denied for months, despite repeated requests, even an interview with Ministers at which it could put its


case. Under a Select Committee procedure, that right would be available to it.
Why Bristol Channel Ship Repairers should be denied that right when Marathon is given special privileges under the Bill, I am totally at a loss to understand.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The hon. Gentleman may care to know that this morning, within an hour of a request reaching me, I saw Mr. John Sorotos of C. H. Bailey and, once again, put to him my very strong wish to go to Cardiff, to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, to meet the work force and to discuss with it the Government's proposal for the company. Mr. Sorotos did not accede to my request.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Heseltine: It is fascinating that what the Minister of State has said should produce that Pavlovian reaction from Labour Members. What he has said has confirmed totally what I said to the Committee—that, for months, BCSR asked for an interview so that its case could be heard, and it was refused. Now, today, the Minister suggests that a meeting should take place.

Mr. Ron Thomas: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I should be grateful for the opportunity to finish the argument. I shall be happy to give way to Red Ron when the time comes.
The House must ask why it is that today a phone call should go from the Minister of State to BCSR. The reason that month after month after month went by without such a response is that the Minister of State is trying to bamboozle the Welsh National Members into behaving in the way in which he succeeded in conning them into behaving a short time ago—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I shall give way in a moment; the Minister must be more patient.
We all know what the Minister of State has been doing; he has been moving from group to group on the Opposition Benches, telling one story to one of them

and another story to another, in the hope that he can salvage the Government's vote in each succeeding Division.
The Scottish National Party Members, who have now seen the wisdom of their ways, were persuaded by some subterfuge from the Government Dispatch Box to abstain a couple of weeks ago. We knew that it was a trick, and they have now come around to understanding—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Ron Thomas: rose—

Mr. Doug Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I realise that this is a Committee stage, but three Members at one time is a little excessive. I have promised that I shall give way to the Minister of State.
That is the reason why Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has become significant. Like Marathon, it has suddenly become important to the Labour Party, so suddenly the red carpet—what an appropriate colour—is wheeled out—

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Ron Thomas: rose—

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: Now there are five of them. I shall give way to the Minister of State.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Welsh Nationals. I do not know what the Welsh is for
timeo Danaos et dona ferentes—
I shall leave it for them to work out—but the hon. Member should listen when statements are made. I did not say that I telephoned BCSR; I said that Mr. Sorotos telephoned me. That is the first point. Secondly, it is well known that many months ago my noble Friend my predecessor as Minister of State saw BCSR. As hon. Members will know very well, I have been trying for about four weeks now to get agreement from BCSR for a visit to its yards on the same basis as I am visiting Vosper Thornycroft on Friday.

Mr. Heseltine: The Minister of State knows that that in no way deals with the issue. BCSR has been treated totally differently from Marathon. So that we might agree on one thing, let us assume that there is a disagreement between the two sides of the House. Let us assume that there are areas in which facts should be ascertained and the voice of the company heard. The question is whether that should be done by a Select Committee which could listen to all the arguments, not of the Minister of State and myself—after all, it would be fair to predict that we might not agree on many of these issues—but of BCSR, which should have the opportunity to put its side of the story just as Marathon was given the right to put its side.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to paint a picture that is quite contrary to what happened in Committee. Apart from the fact that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers spent hundreds of thousands of pounds wining and dining hon. Members in this House, I recall that the representatives of the company were at every meeting of the Committee. Continually, Opposition Members went out to meet them and their point of view was put continually during those proceedings.

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot speak for the amount of food and wine that was enjoyed by Labour Members through the hospitality of BCSR—that is entirely a matter for those hon. Members—but there is a fundamental difference, which is what hybridity is all about, between the voice of a company being represented in Standing Committee by one Member of Parliament—

Mr. Ron Thomas: By all the Opposition Members.

Mr. Heseltine: —or by a team of Members of Parliament, and that company itself having direct access, so that the whole story can be put fairly and questioned in public. That is what Marathon effectively achieved by the undertaking given by the Labour Party in opposition.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my hon. Friend aware that my information is that, although the Minister of State has said that he will go down to Cardiff to give a speech, there is something that he has not said? He

has said that he will not go down to have meaningful consultations with the shop stewards and all those in that industry, and hear their points of view. He wants only to make a speech, to make party points, to tell them why the Government are going to nationalise the company, and not to listen to the points that they want to put to him.

Mr. Heseltine: The Minister of State should be able to help here. All we need from him is an undertaking that if the representatives of the company come to London at an appointed hour he will meet them. That is all he has to do. It is a simple undertaking; it is precisely what the company has been asking for. Why should exactly that not happen?

Mr. Kaufman: The situation is this: I have now visited about 20 aircraft factories, shipyards and ship repair yards. All the approaches that my office has made for such visits have been on the basis that I would hold meetings with management, middle management, and workers' representatives, in order to discuss with them the Government's proposals in the Bill. I say "discuss", which means not making a speech but engaging in meaningful discussions. I have had about 20 visits of that kind in which meaningful discussions have taken place, in such companies as Austin & Pickersgill, Swan Hunter and Western Shiprepairers. I am going to Vosper Thorneycroft as well. This is in addition to a number of aircraft companies.
Every company that I have approached has, without any precondition, agreed that I should make my visit on the basis that I proposed. I have proposed and have been proposing it for four weeks to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, but it has not accepted. That company laid down preconditions for my visit which no other company laid down.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Heseltine: The Minister of State wishes to go on repeating something that is quite meaningless. We know that on these visits the hon. Gentleman has made speeches. Many of my hon. Friends were present when he made his visits. I have spoken to many people. The Minister merely seeks the opportunity of putting forward the Government's determination to bring about nationalisation.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: That is what he is paid for.

Mr. Heseltine: Exactly. That is what he is paid for. The hon. Gentleman did not make those visits to discuss, negotiate or investigate in the way that the Labour Party went to Marathon to consider the facts. The hon. Gentleman said "I will tell you what the Government have decided to do."
I have a copy of a letter that Labour Members will see as setting the scene in context of how Bristol Channel Ship Repairers replied to the Minister of State's observations. The letter, which is dated 19th July, reads:
On 13th January 1976 you
the Minister of State—
told Standing Committee D that you had made arrangements to visit us. However, seven months passed before we heard from you".
That does not sound like a man who is totally confident that he will get the kind of reception that he wants or who cares whether he has any consultation. I ask the House to consider whether the juxtaposition of events is more in line with the interpretation that I have produced, namely, that the Minister is trying to buy off the Welsh nationalist votes for Thursday night, just as he did a few weeks ago. That is what the argument is about. The Government, exactly as they did with Marathon, will give in only when the pressure on them is overwhelming. Otherwise, it is their own dogma above all else.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only condition that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers put on any visit was that there should be an agreed agenda? It was on the basis of an agreed agenda that the arrangements fell down. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask the Minister what formal letters were sent asking for a meeting with Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and the dates of those letters, if any were sent.

Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to welcome the Welsh nationalists back to the fold in opposition to the Bill. There is no point in asking the Minister of State such questions, because we shall not get answers. There is no way in which the House can get answers from Minis-

ters in this Government. That is why there should be a Select Committee procedure. The Minister would then have no choice but to produce the evidence—the letters and documents and, indeed, the draft agenda that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers sent to him as a basis for discussion. That would make the position clear. That would then put the treatment of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers precisely on all fours with the treatment that Marathon received from the Labour Party when in opportunist opposition.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: On the question of the visit to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is typical of the arrogant mood into which the Government have moved, as they have found themselves thwarted, that the Minister should lay down to a company, which is really a collection of many small ship repair depots, the same type of straitjacket procedure for visits as he has apparently got away with in relation to huge shipyards on the North-East Coast, when the two are not analagous?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) makes an important point, with which I agree, but it is bad news for the Government that the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, the Liberals and the Conservatives are opposed to the Bill. All we want now is for the Ulster Unionists to rise to their feet in hostility to the Bill and the Minister of State will be offering all kinds of deals to try to buy his way back into power on Thursday night. With this kind of pressure, who knows what concessions will be offered? The more that the voice of opposition is raised from the Opposition Benches, the more the Minister will have to review his position. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to start singing that song, he should join his colleagues below the Gangway, because we know what is in their minds.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned so many names and taken them in vain, and as the Minister of State has moved from Bench to Bench, will he tell us what blandishments were offered to the Conservative Party to resume pairing arrangements several weeks ago, and what subsequently caused that arrangement to be changed and to revert to square one?

Mr. Heseltine: The Minister of State knows that there is no way in which he can buy off the Conservative Party. It is the one party that has consistently fought the Government from the day that they were first elected.
I leave that point, I realise that it is uncomfortable for Government supporters. The fact is that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate and I wish to give them an opportunity to do so. I leave that matter, merely saying that I can see no justification for treating Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, Vospers, Vickers, Yarrows, or even the aircraft companies, in any way differently from the privileged negotiations that the Labour Party, in opposition, was prepared to conduct and to make arbitrary arrangements for narrow party purposes. That is the only point that the Government have to answer.
The Government will not accept the concept of a Select Committee investigation into one of their Bills, because questions would have to be answered. All who served on this Bill in Committee and those who have served on other committees are fully aware that this proposal to nationalise two industries is based on dogma. There is not one rational argument behind the Government's proposal. Every time that Members who served on the Committee or any commentators in the wider media outside asked for information, facts and forward plans, there was a deafening silence. The Government are appalled at the prospect that someone might demand answers to questions before progress is made on the Bill. For example, which yards will be run down under nationalisation?

Mr. Grocott: There were 58 sittings in Committee.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. There were 58 sittings. I wish that there had been more. However, we still did not get the answers, and we would not have got them had there been 158 sittings. That is the difference between the Standing Committee and the Select Committee procedures.
We have not found out which yards are scheduled to be run down in the Government's proposals, although the steering committee must know. We have no idea which projects will be intro-

duced or where the work will come from under nationalisation, although somebody in the Department of Industry must have a fairly shrewd idea of what the score is likely to be. We have no idea how much direction of orders will take place from the successful to the unsuccessful yards, although somebody must have made the calculations.
In the aircraft industry, we have no idea where the work load and the projects for the next five years will come from, yet that is the only question that matters when dealing with job prospects and investment in those industries.
All those questions would have been answered compulsorily under the Select Committee procedure. If they were answered, the Government Benches would be filled with apprehensive Members of Parliament, because they would have to care about the answers. But, because they can go on mouthing platitudes, such as "We will look after the jobs, boys, once we have these industries in public ownership", without coming to grips with the economic crisis which is facing us—a trauma that will intensify within the next few months—they are able to hide behind the generalities without facing the practical realities.
The Bill is an alibi to try to persuade people that we can go on behaving in a way in which everyone increasingly understands we cannot. The Government have enabled unpalatable questions to be delayed a little longer. Labour Members are content to see £300 million of the taxpayers' money pushed down that drain because it suits the convenience of the Government at this time.
We shall oppose this group of amendments. We shall oppose them deliberately, in order to keep this a hybrid Bill, because if it remains a hybrid Bill it is possible that some questions will be answered and that the truth will come out, and if that happens the Bill will have even less chance of reaching the statute book.

Mr. William Small: Having served on the Standing Committee, perhaps I may make a short contribution on the subject of hybridity.
If one does research into hybridity in history, one finds that the first case known to man was that of Heiron II, who examined his crown, and sent it to the goldsmith, who said "We had better give


this job to Archimedes." Archimedes then discovered the degree of gold and silver by weighing the crown in water. Then we heard "Eureka, Eureka"—the great discovery from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who suddenly met a man from Yarrows. The man's name is Ian Dewar Mann. We sat for 58 sittings without a whisper of hybridity, but suddenly a director of Yarrows does not want it to be included in the Bill. It was in the schedule and Marathon was not. Therefore, on a technicality, a political apostrophe, we went through the drama of that evening when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) lifted the Mace.
For those biblically inclined, if they look at the Revised Version of the Holy Bible, of 1611, they will find that they have been living with a mistake all their lives. They have talked of straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel, but in the free Greek translation a mistake was made. The phrase is not "straining at a gnat." It is "straining out a gnat." In the Mediterranean basin, in straining olives to get rid of insects people use a net which strains out the oil. It would strain out gnats and not strain at a gnat. We have lived with that mistake all our lives. I can live with many mistakes here.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am sure that SNP Members were very appreciative of the fact that they were mentioned in the King James' Bible. Straining at the gnat is something that the Minister has been doing ever since we have been discussing these affairs. I am sure that SNP Members will agree that it is desperately important that we get the right decision in relation to Scotland, with its tragic unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has rightly said that we are here making a simple decision whether the Bill should go through to the House of Lords now or whether it should be considered in detail—

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Roger Stott: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Perhaps you would guide the House whether it is in order for an hon. Member who has a pecuniary interest in the matter that we are discussing not to declare that

interest when he starts to speak. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is entered in the Register of Members' Interests as having an office of employment in the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association. Ought not the hon. Member to have informed the House of that fact when he rose to speak in this debate?

The Chairman: It is customary and a courtesy to the Committee for hon. Members to do that if they have an interest.

Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Scott) is well aware, I have made it clear from the beginning of our proceedings in Committee and have declared it in the Register that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association, and I spent most of my working life in the shipyards of the Clyde. However, the Minister of State has taken every opportunity not only to advise hon. Members of this but also to put the most grave misinterpretation on my relationship with the association. As adviser to the association it is an honourable job that I do. It is very strange that it has been alleged that I have been in some way the spokesman for the industry in the House of Commons. It is very strange that we have had the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), the Minister and others saying that the industry is desperate to be nationalised and that the employers are just dying to be nationalised because they will crumble unless they are nationalised.

Mr. David Lambie: And you will lose your job.

Mr. Taylor: If I were acting as a spokesman, according to the Minister I would be supporting this Bill. However, I wonder whether it is being suggested by the hon. Gentleman that if I were not a parliamentary adviser to the association I would be supporting the Bill.
I have deplored this Bill from the moment it started because I believe that it will mean a very considerable loss of jobs in Scotland. All the evidence is there. It would be considered if we defeated these amendments and allowed the Bill to be considered in detail.

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The Register of Members'


Interests was deliberately prepared in order that there should be clarity about the interests of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has repeatedly declared the interest concerned. I believe that it would be against the best interests of the House if the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State sought to raise this issue not because he is seeking clarification but in order that a party point should be put across the House, by the form of a technique of repetition which I am not aware of having heard from the many Labour Members who are paid by trade unions in order to put their particular points of view.

The Chairman: The Committee is well seized of the point, and I think that it should not be pursued.

Mr. Taylor: It is very important from Scotland's point of view that there should be a very careful look at what nationalisation will do to jobs in Scotland, for a number of reasons. First, we have had many recent experiences of the effect of nationalisation on jobs in Scotland. One of the reasons why we shall be denied the presence of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and many of his hon. Friends after the next General Election, and one reason why he will find great difficulty in saving his deposit, is the effect of nationalisation on jobs in Central Ayrshire. Only this week we had yet another indication that the salvation of jobs in Central Ayrshire and the vicinity—the building of the integrated steelworks at Hunterston—will almost certainly be delayed simply because a nationalised board does not have the money to go ahead. We have our experience of the nationalised steel industry in Scotland, which has meant not only redundancies but reorganisations and people being put out of work and moved from one place to another.
The nationalisation of steel has been misunderstood as being the salvation and security of jobs in Scotland, but it has been a disaster for Scotland. We have the appalling situation that the pipes for North Sea oil, instead of being produced by our State-owned industry, are being imported from Japan. For one reason only, the effect of steel nationalisation on jobs in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, we should reject these amendments and

ensure that the case for shipbuilding must be made in detail.
Secondly, on the question of the oil industry, it would take a genius to make a financial disaster out of North Sea oil, but that is precisely what the Government have done because of their threats of nationalisation of the oil industry in the North Sea. The House will be aware of the tragic situation in Scotland where the Government have pumped a massive amount of money into oil platform yards and we have these yards at present with nothing to do—men being put out of work, men not being employed, men threatened with redundancy. Why is this so? It is simply because of Socialist planning and nationalisation.

Mr. Loyden: Nonsense.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will accept that North Sea oil is a potential boon. However, the Government estimated that once we got North Sea oil going we would have plenty of orders for platforms and, therefore, plenty of jobs for Scots. It has not happened. Why not? The oil industry has made clear time and again that one of the main reasons why development has slowed is simply the threat of nationalisation and State participation in oil.
In Scotland 165,000 people are unemployed and there will be more. Nationalisation is one of the main reasons for that. Hon. Members may say that that is not the case, but I ask them why it is that there are no oil platform orders, why have steel workers been put out of work and why has the Hunterston plan been delayed? The reason is that Government and industry cannot work together and that Governments always have a horrible habit of running out of money in a way that private industry does not. That is one of the main reasons for the jobs crisis in Scotland.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain, if private industry does not run out of money, what happened to Leyland, Rolls-Royce, Alfred Herbert, Norton Villiers and the long list of companies that used almost to sit on my doorstep begging for money when I was Minister? They encountered trouble at the beginning of the period of Labour Goverment and at the end of the Tory Administration.

Mr. Taylor: A number of firms in the private sector do not succeed and run out of money because they stop making profits and have labour problems. If Governments did not prop them up, they would have to be reorganised or closed down. But where there is a potential for profit and growth, private industry can obtain the cash whereas governments cannot. The Hunterston steelworks and oil development are examples of that.

Mr. Heseltine: The firms on the list provided by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) had one thing in common. They had listened to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) who had given them advice on how to make their companies successful. Consequently, they went bankrupt.

Mr. Taylor: I was putting forward the facts upon which I hope that hon. Members opposite will reflect. In Scotland our experience is that nationalisation makes things worse.
The third reason for rejecting the amendments and for a study on the effects of nationalisation is that nationalisation means centralised decision making. Decisions will be made not in Scotland but elsewhere. When we see the ludicrous proposals for decentralisation we should not be surprised if the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) had a finger in it.
With the help of the late Mr. Brian O'Malley, on the iron and steel nationalisation Bill, we managed to get through an amendment to provide that regard should be paid to the regions when the headquarters of the steel board was located. That was a victory because it should have meant that there would be no London set-up. Despite what the Minister may think—and I am prepared to accept that he is a decent and straight chap—there will be a colossus in London. He believes that the amendment will result in no such thing and he is expected to make an announcement about the siting of the headquarters this week. I am certain that the little branch office in London will grow and grow.
When the Oil Corporation was set up in Glasgow we thought that that was a good thing. But there is nothing in Glasgow except a load of crockery and

one or two typists. All the action and meetings are in London. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that that is what has happened. There is nothing in Glasgow except rent being paid to a property company, a large number of cups and saucers and plates and one or two people who open doors and organise lunches.
Another reason for rejecting the amendments is that we cannot afford nationalisation at present. We are cutting back on essential services. In my area home helps are being reduced by 5 per cent. and school crossing wardens are being cut, creating a threat to old people and children. We cannot afford those essential services if we spend all our money on nationalisation.
The final reason for rejecting the amendments—and the pro-nationalisers such as the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and others should bear this in mind—is the Healey cuts which have just been announced. One of the items is a reduction of £147 million for investment in the nationalised industries. We do not know where those cuts will fall. We do not know whether they will affect steel, the railways or British Airways. All we know is that, despite cuts which have already been made in investment in nationalised industries, there is to be a further cut of £147 million.
Do hon. Members opposite believe that if the Bill goes ahead there will be enough cash for development? They must know that there will not be that cash because existing nationalised industries are already being starved of investment. British Rail and the steel board are being starved and shipbuilding will also be starved of investment. The industry will become more archaic and will make larger and larger losses which will have to be financed by the taxpayer. The Secretary of State knows that he will have to pay a fortune to the Treasury for those losses because he has not got the money. If he has, will it come out of the £147 million that he is to take out of the other nationalised industries?
Let us take another look at the nationalisation proposals and justify them yard by yard. I am afraid that the Bill will create the same problems as


occurred in the steel industry in Scotland. Jobs will be lost instead of gained, profits will be lost instead of made. That will be bad for the consumer, bad for the taxpayer and will certainly be bad for Scotland.
At a time when unemployment in Scotland is at a post-war high, and rising fast, the Secretary of State should look carefully at spending more money on nationalisation. Local government spending is being cut, there is a three-month delay in the payment of regional aid premiums. The Government are operating crazy economics and the proposals will be bad for jobs and for Scotland. I hope that the amendments will be rejected.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is a notable and welcome occasion when the Conservative Party acknowledge, as they have done today, that the debating procedures in the Chamber and the adversarial procedures in the Chamber and in Standing Committee are wholly unsuited to the discussion of legislation dealing with nationalisation or denationalisation of the complicated entities such as we have in industry today. I regret that the Government—exceptionally in the case of the Secretary of State, who usually has a generous, large-minded attitude—seem to treat the necessity for the amendments as an irritating detail to placate some meticulous hon. Members on the Opposition side. That is a short-sighted attitude.
It should be understood that any future ventures—and I hope that there will be few—into the State takeover of modern industry are bound to be hybrid in spirit and are almost certain to be hybrid in the letter. The Government are lucky to have picked two industries where they might get away with dismissing hybridity by the absurd formula which is before us.
Everybody knows that industry today is so ramified that it is impossible, without abusing draftsmanship, to categorise industries in legislative form. At random, I did an exercise on the supposition that some misguided government might want to take over the concrete industry or the wire industry.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: What a good idea.

Mr. Wainwright: A glance at a trade directory shows that if that were to happen in the concrete industry it would be necessary to refer to at least 59 different categories. In regard to the wire industry it would be necessary at the very least to refer in detail to at least 106 different products in that industry.
The Government are lucky if they get away with categorising the shipbuilding, ships repairing and aircraft industries in the formulae which have been devised. It would have been better to face the matter and to realise that matters of this highly technical nature should be dealt with by an inquisitorial and interrogative procedure such as that adopted in Select Committee. That would have been achieved if the Government had opted for the hybrid procedure—a procedure which undoubtedly haunts this Bill and which I hope will be fully explored in another place. They should have met that difficulty head on and gone back to a Select Committee. The Liberal Party has for many years made the point that the adversarial procedure in this House is outdated. Therefore, we shall oppose these amendments.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may I ask him one question?

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has already concluded.
I call Mr. Ron Thomas.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I should like to ask the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) about a matter that no doubt was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who tried to intervene. I wish to make the point that during the 58 sittings of the Committee I did not once hear the hon. Member for Colne Valley say that he felt that we had not discussed the Bill in sufficient detail. He certainly did not suggest that we had not given enough time to any particular yard.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I was cavilling not at the amount of time taken, but at the use made of that time. I believe


that time spent in an inquisitorial question and answer procedure in a Select Committee would have been much more fruitful than the seeming eternity that we spent in Standing Committee.

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman has any comment about the wasting of time in Committee, he should address it to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who gave a long detailed account of the development of jurisprudence in Scotland, going back before the days of William the Conqueror. If any hon. Member likes to read the Hansard of the Standing Committee and to undertake a statistical exercise, he will find that the bulk of the time spent in that Committee was taken up by Opposition Members arguing about the level of compensation to the owners. They tried to extract the last penny for the kind of people they represent.

Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman has now delivered himself, no doubt for constituency consumption, of that particular load of rubbish, will he tell us in the context of the 58 sittings of the Committee the proportion of time devoted to the subject of compensation?

Mr. Thomas: I have not worked out the matter statistically. I was pointing out that one has only to read through the reports of the proceedings in the Standing Committee to realise that, having dealt with the duties and responsibilities of the corporations and with questions of industrial democracy and diversification, we went almost immediately to the subject of compensation.

Mr. Kaufman: Does not my hon. Friend recollect that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) at the final sitting of the Committee said that the filibustering began when we reached the compensation clauses and that progress then came to a grinding halt? The hon. Gentleman repeated that remark during the timetable debate only last week.

Mr. Thomas: I agree that that was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will take up that matter if he has the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I was concerned when, following the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee,

we were suddenly faced with the situation involving the prima facie situation of hybridity. It seems strange to many hon. Members that we could have got to that advanced stage in the Bill before anybody discovered the issue of hybridity when that point had not been raised throughout many detailed arguments.
I see no justification for the argument that the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers or any other company has been unable to put its point of view on this legislation. That company, so far as I can judge, has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on a massive publicity campaign involving the wining and dining of hon. Members. Furthermore, week after week its representatives were present in the Standing Committee and were constantly available to give advice to Opposition Members.
One implication in the remarks of the hon. Member for Cathcart was that up to this point we had taken into public ownership only bankrupt industries. In other words, we took over only those industries which had already been exploited, industries which the so-called entrepreneurs were no longer willing to capitalise. Therefore, having taken them over, we have had to go through a system of rationalisation, sackings, redundancies and all the rest of it.
If it is said that private industry is the only means of providing jobs, sales, markets and so on, why have we 1½million unemployed? It has happened because private industry has failed. One has only to look at the level of unemployment in other Western industrialised companies. They have fared no better than industry in the United Kingdom. One has only to take as an example the situation in West Germany—a nation held un by the Opposition as adopting the kind of policies we should be pursuing with our own trade unions. It also applies to the United States. It lies in a failure of the private enterprise system.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Cathcart will give examples of what he regards as Socialist planning. I am waiting to go into the Division Lobby in order to register my "Yes" vote for a bit of Socialist planning.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I give just one example—namely, the situation in regard


to the supply of oil platforms. The Government are putting many millions of pounds into North Sea activities, but there are no platforms because the investment programmes of the oil companies are being held up by the Socialist threat of nationalisation.

Mr. Thomas: I do not regard that as Socialist planning. Indeed, the situation would be no different under a Conservative Government.
We have heard a good deal about the unemployment that might be created in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. I shall not comment on shipbuilding because I do not know enough about that subject, but the Government have never even hinted that the mere act of nationalisation of the aircraft industry will save jobs nor do we expect that to happen. What the Government have rightly said—and we support them on this—is that for years now none of the private owners, none of the Lord Robenses who own Vickers and therefore ipso facto BAC, has been prepared to put his private money into any venture. The private owners are prepared to go ahead only if they can get my right hon. Friend to give them public money. That is the heart of the problem.
We believe that public ownership will bring about the kind of co-ordination and planning that will give much better security to workers in the aircraft industry than they have ever had under the private system. The Conservatives' record shows a considerable rundown in numbers of employees in the aerospace industry under a Tory Government.
I am sure that the House will support the Government's amendments and will reject the many Conservative amendments aimed basically at stopping public ownership of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The Secretary of State left us rather in the dark. He told us that the reason for trying to eliminate hybridity is to speed the passage of this Bill. Clearly this is not the case. If the Secretary of State had wanted to speed the passage of the Bill, he would not have acted as he did on 27th May—more than six sitting weeks ago. He would have tabled a motion that the Bill be sent to a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, which is

an alternative to a Select Committee in both Houses. That would have cut out the Committee stage in the House of Lords. The Bill would have been on the statute book by now had he followed that course.
Alternatively, the Secretary of State could have sent the Bill to a Select Committee. In six sitting weeks the Bill would have been out of the Select Committee and back on to the Floor of the House for Report stage, when there would have been no need for a guillotine. Whatever is passing through the mind of the Secretary of State—and it would seem that is not a very arduous process—it is not the speedy passage of this Bill.
What then is the object of these amendments? The Secretary of State has not told us. The only reason he has given is transparently untrue, The real reason is of course, his dread of the petitioners. He is determined that ordinary working-class employees of the firms concerned, who belong to trade unions which sponsor Labour Members and who do not wish to be nationalised, must not be allowed to appear before a Committee and to give evidence or assert why they do not wish to have their livelihood jeopardised by the Bill. That is what the Secretary of State has avoided by the serpentine procedures which the Government have followed.
5.15 p.m.
Far from saving time, these procedures have consumed time, and they have delayed and hazarded the passage of the Bill. Is there a more sinister reason for this? It is possible that the Secretary of State wants some shipyards to collapse and to go out of business before the Bill reaches the statute book. Is that the reason for his delaying tactics? Does he want to ensure that the collapse of these yards will not be laid at the door of Lord Beeswax or Admiral Griffin? There may be other reasons, but if there are, they have not been given to the House.
Why is the Secretary of State deliberately adopting procedures week after week which have slowed down the passage of the Bill? He does not seem to be very well harmonised—to use an EEC expression—with his Minister of State who rushes around the country saying that unless the Bill is passed into law rapidly, people's jobs will be at stake.


Yet the Secretary of State is doing all he can to delay the Bill. He and the Minister of State should have a conference before the Minister of State is allowed to visit any more firms. They should reach an agreement and decide whether they are trying to speed up the passage of the Bill or delay it.

Mr. Loyden: Is the hon. Member aware that on Merseyside a massive amount of Government money has been poured into private enterprise shipbuilding and repairing yards? This has been happening for the last five years—long before there was any question of nationalisation. The situation in these yards has now reached the point where they are employing less than 3,000 people compared with 20,000 many years ago. If he is applauding private enterprise, perhaps he could explain why this situation has been reached.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not see what bearing that intervention has on the point I was making that the Secretary of State is delaying the Bill while the Minister of State is asserting that its speedy passage is desirable.

Mr. Tom King: Has my hon. Friend noticed that that strange intervention was critical of the management of the shipbuilding industry on Merseyside, yet the Government have appointed as the chief executive of the new shipbuilding corporation one of the managing directors from Merseyside?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, indeed. Doubtless he is drawing a salary for a job which is not being done. When we have the winding-up on this debate I hope that someone will speak with authority on behalf of the Government and say which of these two things—mutually incompatible as they are—they are trying to do. The House is entitled to know which of the two Ministers has been declaring Government policy, as it is not possible for both to be doing so. Indeed, the only interpretation we can place on their conflicting attitudes is the one with which I started—namely, that the Government want massive collapses inside the aircraft and shipbuilding industries before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
If that happens they can say, "Look, this is the result of not being nationalised." They have deprived these firms of adequate credit by threatening to nationalise them, they have driven away foreign customers who do not want to place orders without knowing who is going to execute them, then when the firms totter they say that this is the result of not being nationalised.

Mr. John Evans: Is the hon. Member aware that shipyard workers in the North and North-East of England are very concerned about these matters, and if he is suggesting that shipyards will collapse if they are not nationalised, his party will bear the primary responsibility for that?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not the Conservative Party which is driving customers away from the North, North-East, the South or anywhere else. What is driving them away is that they do not know whether the orders they place will be executed by the yard with which they are placed. They do not know which yards the Government will keep going or which yards they will close. They know perfectly well that the Government intend to create more unemployment by closing down shipbuilding and ship repair yards. The customers abroad know that perfectly well, but the Government, by refusing to say which they will close, are depriving those to be kept open of business which they could otherwise take. It is the Government, not the Conservative Party, who are doing that.

Mr. Loyden: You delayed the Bill.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Gentleman had been here a few moments ago he would have heard how the Bill could aready have been on the statute book by now. The decision to do nothing week after week was taken by the Secretary of State, the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet. The Opposition do not decide what shall be the Government Orders of the Day. It was not the Opposition who drafted the Bill so incompetently. It was not the Opposition who tried to circumvent Mr. Speaker's ruling. All that was the responsibility of


the Government. At each step the Government have taken decisions which are either foolish or incompetent or are both.
It is not to be expected that their actions would be either consistent or successful because they cannot agree among themselves what they are trying to do. If the Secretary of State is trying to delay the Bill while the Minister of State is trying to hustle it, it is not surprising that nothing happens. That is why week after week has gone by with nothing happening. If Labour Members had been in touch with trade unionists in the industry, they would have known of the extreme anxiety of these people at the Government refusing to declare which projects they will back. There is nothing to stop the Government from doing that. Their decision to back projects is in no way dependent on whether the industry is nationalised. They have the power to back projects under existing legislation, and they do not need one word of this Bill to enable them to back projects to enable the aircraft industry to survive, and without which it will not survive.
Certainly, unscrupulous Socialist politicians from both the Treasury Bench and the Back Benches have been rushing around the country deliberately deceiving the workers in those industries. They have told them that unless the Bill is passed their jobs are in danger. There is no word of truth in that. They have also told them that if the Bill is passed, their jobs will be safe. There is no truth in that either. They have told them that the projects in the aircraft industry upon which their livelihoods depend cannot be undertaken unless the Bill is passed. There is no truth in that whatever.
All this is a grossly immoral thing to do to people whom the Government intend to throw on the scrap heap, and they intend to do that to a large number of people who are currently employed in these industries. Back Benchers know that that is the Government's intention, and they are participating in the deceit by concealing the fact from their constituents, from their fellow trade unionists, and from the firms which fall within the ambit of the Bill. Let us therefore have no more humbug about that. The Government intend to create still more unemployment.
We have not seen the worst of the unemployment. Last week there was the announcement of the payroll tax. The Government intend to close shipbuilding firms. Why will the Secretary of State not say which he intends to shut down? The reason is that it would lose some votes. Once people know which firms will be shut, the Members who represent them will have a very rough ride. The Secretary of State will not tell the employees, the managers or even the directors in the aircraft industry which projects the Government will back.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend has touched on a most important point about the reduction in capacity which is bound to follow enactment of the Bill. Is he aware that the EEC Commission has published a report in which it makes clear that the first requirement of Community action is that the Community must undertake to bear its share in the reduction of capacities in order to establish equilibrium between supply and demand in shipbuilding?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One wonders whether the Secretary of State, who is not very good at reading, has read that. I say that he is not very good at reading because neither he nor his officials gave any sign that they had read the Select Committee Report on the motor industry. Instead, they allowed the waves of the Chrysler episode to break over them. It is therefore possible that the right hon. Gentleman has not bothered to read the EEC document either, and that also may take him by surprise.

Mr. Varley: I take very little notice of anything to which the hon. Gentleman has contributed.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, and it is the taxpayer who has to pick up the bill. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House to ask for large subventions of taxpayers' money because he had not done his job as Secretary of State as he was paid to do it. He was in charge of an incompetently drafted Bill, and he knows so little of procedure that he has allowed weeks to pass without the Bill making any progress. On the one hand, the Minister of State was rushing around the country saying that the Bill was desperately needed, while, on the other


hand, the Secretary of State was holding it up. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. His incompetence is self-confessed as well as obvious.
Perhaps at some stage the Secretary of State will come clean with the Committee. He must tell us today whether he wants the Bill passed quickly into law. If Government policy has been reversed and if the Minister of State now holds sway, we are entitled to be informed of that fact. It might be as well to make sure that the other place knows what Government policy is, because their Lordships might be entitled to infer that the Government want the Bill delayed as much as possible, since the right hon. Gentleman has taken every step within his power to delay it.
We now come to the amendments with which the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to remove hybridity from the Bill. He must have our sympathy. It must have been very embarrassing for the Secretary of State, if he is capable of being embarrassed, when on 27th May, the very day of the cheated vote, out came the Financial Times with an article on Marathon saying that the company was now going into business making what even the Secretary of State would recognise as ships. That must have been very embarrassing for him. The truth of the matter is that if Marathon is not to collapse, it cannot remain in business making only vessels like "Key Victoria". It will have to make things that even the Secretary of State would recognise as ships. Why, then, all these convolutions to leave Marathon out of the Bill? If nationalisation is a healthy process for the whole industry, why is it not healthy for Marathon? If it is a necessary process for the shipbuilding industry, why is it an unnecessary process for Marathon? If it is in the national interests, for no very obvious reason, that all firms that are converting, constructing or repairing ships above a certain size should be nationalised, why is it not in the national interest that Marathon should be nationalised?
How did Marathon come here in the first place? As a matter of interest, it came here largely through the intervention of Mr. McGarvey—excellent—and the owner of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited, who went to America

at his own expense and stayed there for several weeks to assist in the negotiations, for which he has never received a penny. Indeed, he did not expect to receive anything from the beginning.
5.30 p.m.
How do the Government explain this inconsistency? They promise not to nationalise Marathon and proceed to try to nationalise Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited against the overwhelming wishes of its own employees. That is Socialism in action.
If the Bill goes through and we look back in three or four years time at what is left of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, how many will recognise what is left as the pattern that Labour Members told their constituents would follow the passage of this miserable Bill, whether or not it is dehybridised?

Mr. Hoyle: I shall speak quite differently from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—namely, about the people who work in these ton must take the credit—he cannot interest in that I am a member of the National Executive of ASTMS. Its members in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries, and in the aircraft industry, desire the Bill as soon as possible.
Of course, the hon. Member for Tiverton must take the credit—he cannot move it anywhere else—for holding up the Bill. That is his responsibility. Why does he now try to hide away from it? Why is he trying to put the responsibility on the shoulders of my right hon. and hon. Friends? I thought he was proud of what he had done. After all, he does not need to be troubled by angry constituents in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in Tiverton. There are not too many shipyards knocking about in Tiverton. The hon. Gentleman is in no danger. Why does he not admit that he delayed the Bill and take the responsibility for doing so?
There are many angry people in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. They are demanding to know what the Opposition are playing at. After 58 sittings in Committee they continued to delay the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) referred to the compensation clauses and said that the Opposition were interested only in those clauses. He is usually 100 per


cent. correct, but in this case he was not quite correct because much of the time was taken up by discussion on the arbitration clauses, in which the Opposition also have a vital interest. Examination of the proceedings in Committee will reveal the inordinate amount of time that was taken up by references to arbitration. Compensation and arbitration were their main interests.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to his colleagues in giving all the praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for delaying the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman examines the record he will find that the Bill was given a First Reading on 30th April 1975, but it did not receive a Second Reading until 2nd December—namely, a seven-month delay. Whatever my hon. Friend has done, he has not delayed it that much yet.

Mr. Hoyle: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), in his usual way—he is often partly truthful with the House—admits that the hon. Member for Tiverton is responsible for some of the delay that has occurred.

Mr. Tebbit: Not for seven months.

Mr. Hoyle: It might not be seven months, but he is turning it into a pregnancy in the way that he is going about it. The point that I am making is that the people in the industries want to get on with the successful running of them.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has joined in our discussions. He was always interesting to listen to in Committee, and he was entertaining this afternoon when taking us across the broad spectrum of what happens to industries when they are nationalised. However, I am rather surprised that he did not tell us what has been happening to the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries under private enterprise. He might have told us how they have lacked investment and how they are almost in the throes of collapse. They are not facing collapse because the Government are to take the industries into public ownership but because of the mismanagement that has occurred over many years.
It appears that most of the Opposition's case is based on the Press of the Chairman of the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. It has been said that my hon. Friend the Minister of State did not meet him, that he telephoned the company or that the company telephoned him. I do not understand all this concern about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. If ever a company spent money putting forward its case, it is the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited.
Surely my hon. Friend the Minister of State does not need to meet the company to know the case that it is trying to mount. He has been able to see it in the national Press. Almost every paper that we have picked up has been putting forward the case at great length. The company has had its own representatives in this place. They have assiduously lobbied Members. In Committee we were pressed to go to this or that luncheon to hear the case put again. I do not see any need for my hon. Friend further to consult the firm.
I should like to know where all the money has been coming from. Surely it might have been spent to better effect, if only in higher salaries and wages for the company's employees.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's pay policy prevents firms that make large profits from paying out more in wages?

Mr. Hoyle: I did not catch what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Government's pay policy, that he supported and voted for, prevents successful firms from paying their workers more money?

Mr. Hoyle: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but he knows that I am opposed to the pay policy. Why is the hon. Gentleman looking so surprised? If the company could not pay the employees more money, it could have given them the lunches and dinners instead of giving them to Members of Parliament. That might have been one way in which it could have overcome the trivial difficulty that the hon. Gentleman presents to us. There are ways and means. I want to make a serious point—

Mr. Tebbit: It will be the first one.

Mr. Hoyle: I have yet to hear the hon. Gentleman make any serious point. I am willing to give way if he wants to make one now.

Mr. Lambie: It will be compensation.

Mr. Hoyle: Compensation or arbitration,

Mr. Tebbit: We are all grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us that there are ways of circumventing the pay policy. We know that the General Secretary of ASTMS, Mr. Clive Jenkins, has been assiduous in torpedoing the Government's policy. But surely a Back Bencher who supports his Government should not be advocating the breaching of the Government's pay policy.
As the hon. Gentleman is so anxious for further positive points, why does he think that the largest order to be placed recently in the British aerospace industry, an order for $100 million worth of work, has gone to a firm that has been left out of the Bill—namely, Fairey Aviation Limited? It has gone to its factory in Belgium. If he understands the answer to that question, he will understand why the industry will perish once it is nationalised.

Mr. Hoyle: The answer is very simple and elementary. The fact is that the multinational companies are involved, and it is very difficult in many instances to follow what is happening and to know where the contracts go. This is one of the reasons that we need to take into public ownership industries which are vital to the wellbeing of our economy. That is the only way to exercise control over them, and to make sure that the orders stay in this country for the benefit of the people who work in the industry.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member mentioned the need to take into public ownership companies which are vital to the economy. Does he believe that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, employing 300 people, is a company which is dominating the economy and needs to be taken over? Being a passionate advocate of workers' control and of industrial democracy, would he accept that if a referendum of the employees of that company showed that they did not want to be nationalised, they should not be?

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member has made a very interesting point in relation to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. It is part of the ship repairing industry, and as such I think it should be taken into public ownership.
I am particularly interested in the hon. Member's second point concerning the referendum that took place. I recall that in Committee I said that I had never seen such a high percentage vote outside the Soviet Union or the Eastern bloc.

Mr. Ron Thomas: It was 101 per cent.

Mr. Hoyle: I was reproached by the Chairman of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, who explained how it was done. He said "We have not too many employees but I gave them time off to vote, and that was a material incentive for them to vote". I think we know, therefore, why there was a high percentage vote.
I should be more interested in knowing why the white-collar employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers are not in trade unions. I was told by one of them that if he joined a trade union he would be likely to be dismissed by the company. I do not think that is a good example of how to aspire to democracy.
We can imagine how the ballot figures were arrived at. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is not so naive as to raise that kind of question. I wonder how far this disease of support for Bristol Channel Ship Repairers is spreading on the Opposition Benches. It is not only the Conservatives and the Liberals who are involved. It has now spread to the nationalists.

Mr. Wigley: And to Labour people as well.

Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friends have decided that they were perhaps a little mistaken. We had a vote—a kind of referendum—on the Government side, and they have now reconsidered their position. I think they have done a very statesmanlike thing.
The delay caused by the Opposition—I have given the hon. Member for Tiverton due credit for it—has caused great dismay and frustration to the trade unionists in both industries. They want


the two corporations to get on with the job of producing public plans that will result in viable industries. They are also very interested in the proposals in the Bill for industrial democracy.
This is the first time that the workers within the industries will have not only a say in them but also a chance to evolve their own thoughts on industrial democracy. This is bound to make for a new spirit within the industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I tell hon. Members who say "Rubbish" that this is not the view of the trade unionists to whom I have spoken in both the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Loyden: Will my hon. Friend not agree that the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which represents the bulk of the workers in the industries, has had a policy over many years concerning nationalisation? Will he not agree that, if there were a referendum among them on public ownership, the results would be massively in support of public ownership?

Mr. Hoyle: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he says is perfectly correct. What the confederation wants to do—and it speaks for the trade unions within the two industries—is to get on with the job of planning those industries.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart was quite right in one thing he said. That was when he was talking about the run-down in the shipbuilding industry itself. The run-down has occurred—as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows, with his knowledge of Merseyside—because of the lack of investment in that industry, and because of the very bad industrial relations in it.

Mr. Loyden: Here is a shipyard worker.

Mr. Hoyle: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has just entered the Chamber. But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is a shipyard worker. What I know is that the bulk of the Opposition Members are supporting the efforts of

the company in trying to escape public ownership.
What we are really interested in—it has been explained very many times—is decentralised industry. The taking over of the industries does not mean that there will be a very powerful central office. The hon. Member for Cathcart has painted a very gloomy picture indeed in talking about huge palatial offices in London that will house both corporations. The head office for the shipbuilding corporation might be on the Tyne or it might be in Scotland. Who knows? It might even be down in Wales. But wherever it is put, it is said that the power will still reside in London. I suggest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart that we have taken care of this to some degree by our introduction of industrial democracy into the Bill. This will mean that the workers within the industry will have a say in where the headquarters is situated and in what is done at the headquarters.
I know that this is very difficult for Opposition Members to comprehend, but it will mean a new direction in the management of the corporations. There will be a new dimension added to them. For the first time the people within the industries will be able to participate in the decisions that matter.

Mr. Tebbit: Oh, come off it.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member tells me to come off it. I suggest to him that it will not only be possible but that it will be the result of these two corporations being set up.
The real tragedy is the delay that has occurred because of the activities of the hon. Member for Tiverton. This has resulted in delay in the formulation of the plans of these two corporations. The frustration that is felt among the people working in the industries will be visited on the Conservative Party whenever there is a General Election.
Indeed I recall what was said to me by one of the trade unionists in Cheadle in Cheshire. I was about to describe it as a safe Tory haven, but I know that it had a Liberal Member for a short period. The trade unionist told me that there will be 1,000 aircraft workers on the streets in Cheadle challenging the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton)


on his activities in delaying the implementation of the Bill. They will be right to do that. If it had not been for the Opposition we should have been far nearer our goal.
We shall be able to put forward a plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said that the two airframe corporations in the country had never put forward plans without asking for Government aid. They have always asked for help from the Government in the past.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend realise that public support to the aircraft industry amounts to about £5 million a week?

Mr. Hoyle: That fact shows the bankruptcy of the policy followed by the Opposition.
The sooner we put this Bill on the stocks the better it will be for the people working in those industries.

Mr. Tom King: If the quality and depth of reasoning behind the speech made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) is part of the contribution of the Labour Party towards devising the plans for the nationalisation of the industries involved, God help those industries.
The hon. Gentleman referred to delay. The point was put clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). This Bill could have been introduced in November 1974. The Government delayed its introduction until April 1975. First Reading took place in April 1975, Second Reading in December 1975. The selection of amendments for the Report stage was made on 25th May. I used a copy of that document in preparing for this stage. We find ourselves dealing with this Bill on 27th July 1976. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has the nerve to say that the Bill has been delayed for two months and that the Conservative Party are responsible for that delay. When we remember the damage done by the Minister of State, who was involved in the Department that delayed this measure, there is no reason for the hon. Gentleman to sneer. Damage has been done to national assets in the shipbuilding, ship repairing and aircraft industries as a result of the threat of nationalisation from the dreadful process

of national Labour Party conferences and NEC resolutions. The damage done to those industries by the nationalisation proposal will soon begin to be appreciated.
The Government are bulldozing this measure. We shall shortly come to the guillotine procedure and the time for closure. This is an unprecedented situation. The Bill has been recommitted to a Committee of the whole House before the Report stage so that the Government may pass these sordid little amendments to cover a political deal which was concluded when they were in opposition. At that time they realised in a blinding flash of realism that we could not attract inward investment if there were a threat of nationalisation hanging over the companies that might invest here. One union leader had sufficient wit to realise that fact, and as he had sufficient "clout" over the Labour Party when in Opposition, that deal was done. That deal caused all the problems with which the Government are faced with this Hybrid Bill. These wretched little amendments put forward by the Secretary of State are the sordid way in which the hybridity must be covered up.
We have made our position abundantly clear. We believe that morally and practically this is a Hybrid Bill. We support that finding, on prima facie evidence, by Mr. Speaker. We shall comment no further on the unfortunate way in which the Government have chosen to proceed in the past two months.
That brings us to the outcome of these paltry amendments. We shall certainly vote against them and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Mr. Varley: Ministers in charge of Bills in Committee on the Floor of the House and upstairs take much abuse. They ought not to complain about that. There are occasions when guillotines are introduced. There are equal opportunities for Ministers and their Back-Bench supporters to use that time. I hope that in the remaining stages my hon. Friends the Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle), for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) will at least make sure that they take an equal share of the time and perhaps repay some of the abuse that they have taken from the Opposition in


58 sittings. I am sure that they will take that time.
There was a hilarious and bizarre contribution from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who claimed that he wanted to speed up the Bill when we know that his efforts were directed at preventing the Bill from getting on to the statute book. I make no complaint. He should have told the House that his good fortune, as he would no doubt describe it, came to him by chance. The hybridity point was taken in the first instance not to a member of the Conservative Party but to a member of the Liberal Party, who was not greatly involved. I understand that the point was taken to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who thought that it was too hot to handle. He decided that there was a good crank in his party called Maxwell-Hyslop and thought "Let us hand it over to him". That is exactly what happened. That is how the matter came to the light of day.

Mr. Tebbit: He put a spoke in the Government wheel.

Mr. Varley: It was a spoke in the wheel. Therefore on 27th May we said that we would table amendments. That was the reason why we took steps.

Mr. Edward Gardner: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Is it right that a Minister should be allowed to mention an hon. Member by name?

The Chairman: It is not customary but it may occasionally happen in error.

Mr. Varley: That is how it happened.
I thought that I moved the amendments in a non-controversial way. The matter developed into a procedural debate. There were discussions about the British Steel Corporation, the British National Oil Corporation and oil platforms. I make no complaint. However, as I have only two minutes left I do not think that I may answer those matters.
I found the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) schizophrenic. He claimed that nationalisation was terrible and would do great damage to industry in Scotland. We all know that the hon. Gentleman was one of the keenest supporters of the national. isation of the Govan shipyard. As a

result of Scottish interest in Rolls-Royce, he was one of the keenest Members of the Conservative Party in favour of the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce. I find it hard to take from the hon. Gentleman, who tries to give the impression—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Varley: I cannot give way as have only two minutes left.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Varley: I usually give way, but there is only about one minute to go. Bristol Channel Ship Repairers is another story. I have heard many unseemly stories about the Bristol Channel gravy train and all kinds of irregular practices that have been induced—

It being Six O'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 300, Noes 287.

[For Division List No. 282 see col. 597]

Question accordingly agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Schedule 2

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Amendments made:

No. 2, in page 76, line 41, leave out 'converting'.

No. 3, in page 77, line 39, after 'tons', insert:
'but does not include a hovercraft or a mobile offshore installation'.

No. 4, in page 78, line 2, at end add:
'(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "mobile offshore installation" has the same meaning as in Part III of the Industry Act 1972, namely, any installation which is intended for underwater exploitation of mineral resources or exploration


with a view to such exploitation and can move by water from place to place without major dismantling or modification, whether or not it has its own motive power.'.—[Mr. Varley.]

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

'.—(1) Subsections (3) to (6) below shall have effect where a person engaged in shipbuilding, other than—


5
(a) British Shipbuilders, or


(b) one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, or


(c) a body corporate the whole of whose equity share capital is held by or on behalf of the Crown,



makes to the Secretary of State a written complaint that a practice employed by British Shipbuilders or one of its wholly owned subsidiaries in relation to the sale of ships is unfair to the complainant for a reason specified in the complaint.


10 
(2) Subsections (3) to (6) below shall also have effect where a person engaged in shiprepairing, other than—


15
(a) British Shipbuilders, or


(b) one if its wholly owned subsidiaries, or


(c) a body corporate the whole of whose equity share capital is held by or on behalf 15 of the Crown,



makes to the Secretary of State a written complaint that a practice employed by British Shipbuilders or one of its wholly owned subsidiaries in relation to the provision of shiprepairing services is unfair to the complainant for a reason specified in the complaint.


20
 In this subsection "shiprepairing" includes refitting, converting or maintaining ships, 20 and "the provision or shiprepairing services" has a corresponding meaning.


25
(3) The Secretary of State shall forthwith after receiving the complaint send a copy of its to British Shipbuilders and, after such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the complaint by British Shipbuilders as the Secretary of State thinks reasonable has elapsed, shall send to the complainant a statement of any comments made by British  Shipbuilders on the complaint and if he is of opinion—



(a) that the complaint raises a question of substance and



(b) that the complainant has a reasonable case to make in support of it, shall afford the complainant and British Shipbuilders an opportunity of making representations in relation to the matter to a person appointed by the Secretary of State.


30
 (4) The Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person appointed under subsection (3) above and, if it appears to him that the practice complained of is unfair to the complainant, shall give British Shipbuilders such directions as appear to him to be requisite to secure the removal of the ground on which it is unfair.


35
(5) The Secretary of State shall furnish the complainant with a statement of any such directions.


40
(6) When a complainant avails himself of the right to make representations conferred by subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall furnish the complainant and British Shipbuilders each with a copy of the report of the person appointed under that subsection, and a statement of the conclusions reached by the Secretary of State on considering the report.'.—[Mr. Les Huckfieldl.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this clause we are to take the following amendments:

(a), in line 8, after 'to', insert
'the procurement of materials, plant and services for the production of, and'.

(b), leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert:
'one or more of the activities specified in section 2(1) or (2) above, other than—
(a) a Corporation, or'.

New Clause 1

RIGHT OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN SHIPBUILDING OR SHIPREPAIRING TO OBJECT TO PRACTICES OF BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS OR ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES

(c), in line 7, leave out 'British Shipbuilders' and insert 'a Corporation'.

(d), in line 8, leave out 'the sale of ships' and insert 'that or those activities'

(k), in line 37, leave out 'British Shipbuilders' and insert 'the Corporation concerned'.

(e), leave out lines 10 to 20.

(f), in line 22, leave out 'British Shipbuilders' and insert 'the Corporation concerned'.

(g), in line 23, leave out 'British Shipbuilders' and insert 'the Corporation'

(h), in line 24, leave out 'British Shipbuilders' and insert 'the Corporation'

(i), in line 28, leave out 'British Shipbuilders' and insert 'the Corporation'.

(j), in line 32, leave out 'British Shipbuilders' and insert 'the Corporation concerned'.

We are also to take New Clause 2—Right of persons engaged in the aircraft industry to object to practices of British Aerospace or its wholly-owned subsidiaries.

Mr. Huckfield: The subject of legal safeguards for the private sector against unfair trading practices by the public sector took up a great deal of debating time in our Standing Committee. When the matter was last discussed on 4th May I undertook on behalf of the Government to introduce on Report a new clause, modelled on Section 30 of the 1967 Iron and Steel Act, which would deal with unfair trading against British shipbuilders in the sale of ships, in other words, the main shipbuilding activity. As a result of a fair amount of pressure from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) I undertook to consider the desirability of including ship repair.
It is as a result of that reconsideration that I introduce New Clause 1. It extends to both the sale of ships and the sale of ship repair services. In other words, it covers the two industries which after vesting day there will be continuing competition in main line activities between the public and private sectors. We have not included slow-speed diesel marine engines because the companies named in the Bill have no private sector competitors in that field and one of the private sector shipbuilders will be customers for slow-speed diesel engines because they build small ships.
The Government fully recognise that anxieties exist in the industries mentioned and it is hoped that the powers in the clause need never be used. Even the powers in Section 30 of the Iron and Steel Act were only used once and that section has now been repealed.

Mr. Tom King: That was a wholly inadequate introduction to a very important new clause. We give a modified welcome to the clause. It is a very important

departure, as the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has recognised. He pressed his case very strongly in Committee. The Under-Secretary introduced the clause very tersely and without justification or explanation of the way in which it has been constructed.
The Under-Secretary, who claims to have read all the Committee Hansards, will know that this matter was debated twice in Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael), when he was Under-Secretary, justified the Government's not taking any action. The subject reappeared in a new clause introduced by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North, and the Government moved their ground and made concessions, but failed to meet the points that we had raised.
What we are getting at in New Clause 2 will be obvious to the Minister. It is a view that we expressed in Committee. New Clause 1 deals specifically with shipbuilding, ship repairing and with the sale of ships. When it was hinted in Committee that the Government might take this position, we asked why it was limited to the sale of ships and whether it meant all practices in the production of ships. It is important to know whether it involves such activities as the procurement of materials.
The Government have partly accepted our case by introducing New Clause 1, but there is concern that a major State organisation operating in this industry could, like any other monopoly manufacturer, use its powers to the detriment of other firms in the industry. We assume that it is not the ambition of the Government that the creation of British Shipbuilders should put smaller shipbuilding concerns out of business, with the consequent loss of jobs. We assume that it is the Government's aim that these firms should continue to prosper and that the Government do not wish to freeze out any firm that wants to enter the industry. We are not aware of an embargo against anyone starting up these activities.
However, a major manufacturing operation has considerable power and it could be used unfairly to the detriment of the smaller companies in the industry. There are relevant sanctions in the Fair


Trading Act, but such manufacturers can put pressure on the suppliers of materials to prevent their serving other customers, or to obtain preferential trade terms for themselves.
We had a series of unsatisfactory answers in Committee. The hon. Member for Kelvingrove said:
We would not expect the corporations to use their commercial freedom to the detriment of the United Kingdom industry as a whole."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22nd January 1976; c. 396.]
I am sure that we would not expect it, but it could happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) asked whether there would be any preferential pricing arrangements with the British Steel Corporation and the new Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Hurchfield), repeated a carefully worded statement saying that the corporation had assured him:
that it will continue to make steel available to its customers on an equitable basis, subject to normal commercial considerations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4th May 1976; c. 2870.]
What on earth does that mean? It can only mean that the corporation will do whatever it wishes and will defend its actions by saying that it was guided by commercial considerations. There is no protection in that statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart asked later for a specific assurance that the BSC would not offer steel to the nationalised part of the industry more cheaply than to the private side. The Minister of State repeated the carefully worded statement that had been prepared by the BSC to give it total freedom of action.
I accept that it is not entirely unreasonable that steel should not be sold at exactly the same price to all customers. There may be quantity discounts or other special terms, but there is a wide range of matters in which some firms could face discrimination. For instance, at times of shortage of supplies the smaller customers might find that no supplies are available to them and that the largest customers—the nationalised corporations —will take the whole output.
The Under-Secretary referred to Section 30 of the Iron and Steel Act. Hon. Members who look up the Committee proceedings on that measure will find them laden with assurances that the corporation would act in a responsible nondiscriminatory way. It was said that the Section 30 procedures should not be needed, but they were included in the Bill and they were used. On the occasion that they were invoked, it was found that the complaints by the private sector—the British Independent Steel Producers' Association—were justified, and the BSC had to change its pricing policies.
We have been this way before. We have had bland ministerial assurances that nationalised corporations will act responsibly. I am not suggesting that the corporations act out of malice or vindictiveness, but they can over-reach fair competition and use various measures to the detriment of others in the industry.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North, without making any accusations of malpractice or vindictiveness, felt that it was important to have protections, and the Government have partly recognised that by the introduction of New Clause 1. The right hon. Member seemed to accept our arguments when he introduced a new clause in Committee dealing with both corporations. It said:
is engaged in one or more of the activities specified in section 2(1) or (2) above
and dealt with the procedure for making a written complaint.
6.30 p.m.
The Minister said that he would accept that in part. He said he was in sympathy with the principle. We had all the usual trite expressions that we get on such occasions when Ministers propose to do something markedly different from what is suggested. The Minister added:
However, I recognise that there is concern on the part of small shipbuilders who remain in the private sector. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noticed some of the correspondence that we had in the Financial Times and The Times, recently, and from those representing the private shipbuilding interests. Their main concern arises because they will be competing with British Shipbuilders."— [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4th May 1976; c. 2858–61.]
That was the limit of how far he was prepared to go. That was the justification because only shipbuilders had complained.
But in fact the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North had specifically mentioned Greenwell in his speech and his concern about its situation. He quickly made the point that as far as he was concerned shipbuilding included ship repair. But the Minister made clear that he had referred only to the clause about shipbuilders. Having rested his case on the argument that there was concern about shipbuilders, as soon as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he would like to include ship repairing as well, the Minister rushed off, without any justification, or any argument, to say that he would undertake to consider carefully the points about the ship repairing industry being the same as shipbuilding. He gave an undertaking about the introduction of an amendment on Report.
We have got the new clause on Report to cover ship repairing and shipbuilding. But the Under-Secretary made no attempt to answer the question I have consistently asked about the significance of the use of the word "sale". Does it cover the whole operation?
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) mentioned a shipyard which felt that it had been unfairly discriminated against—I think it was the Ailsa Yard—in the placing of a Government contract. It is an area where there could be discrimination in the sale of a ship. But that is only a simple example.
There is the procurement of materials and services and there could be matters affecting employment policies, all of which could involve discrimination against people not within the nationalisation network. Can the Minister make quite clear what the significance of "sale" is?

Mr. Les Huckfield: Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery at a fairly early stage. New Clause 1 includes both the sale of ships and the provision of ship repairing services.

Mr. King: We do not seem to be communicating. That is not my question. The provision of ship repairing services seems to be a wider category. What I am concerned about is whether it covers what I would call "production matters and procurement matters" as well as sale. That is the point.
The Under-Secretary must appreciate this point because it will have been thrust on our amendments. That is what they are all about. We are saying there should not be some narrow technicality which limits this from being a genuinely fair, competition, non-discrimination clause. This should be a wider ranging protection covering all the operations of these corporations.
The other safeguard relates to pricing. In respect of pricing we have an answer from the hon. Member for Kelvingrove to say that the corporations could not discriminate by unfair pricing because they would be required by the Treasury —[Interruption.] It is difficult to address comments to the Under-Secretary because there seems to be a continual conversation on the Government Front Bench. The Minister of State is now the sixth person who is carrying on a conversation with the Under-Secretary when I am trying to address points to him.
The question is whether corporations can compete unfairly by quoting unfair prices and thereby put other and smaller yards out of business because they cannot compete with those prices. The answer given to that and the defence advanced was that the corporations would be required to show a definite rate of return on their capital by the Treasury. That is total rubbish, because in a corporation of this size, with the number of yards which are active, it is the oldest trick in the book, within the generality of showing what may be a reasonable rate of return, to decide to pick off certain competitors and have a drive on the particular kind of ship that they may produce and to under-price.
In the retail trade it is called "a loss leader". There are plenty of companies in this country that show a very adequate return on capital but are still able to run loss leaders in certain areas. As the Under-Secretary appears to understand that point, he will appreciate that it is no protection at all to say that the corporation overall has to show an adequate rate of return.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is all right for a private repair chain to use a loss leader technique in its activities but wrong for a public corporation to use a loss leader in its selling strategy?

Mr. King: The point is that within the private chain, which might operate a loss leader in a particular area to stimulate sales of a particular line, the commercial stategy is that it would have to do it within the constraint of being a profitable organisation, otherwise it would not survive. The private chain has that constraint upon it. I would ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), if the British Shipbuilding Corporation is set up and if in fact it makes losses, does he think that it will be closed down? The answer is "No". The practical answer is that it will continue. Therefore, the comment I would make in this situation is that there is not the same constraint on a nationalised industry.
Although the nationalised industries may be required to achieve an adequate return on capital, I believe that if that is not achieved the sanctions which the Treasury may set out are very weak. The history of the nationalised industries is littered with targets having been set and targets not having been achieved, and the result has been that no real sanctions have been applied.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if a private company behaves with undue discrimination, or discriminates improperly, that can be questioned on the Floor of the House, but with a national corporation it would fall within the day-to-day operations and could not be questioned on the Floor of the House? I think that is one of the great dangers.

Mr. King: I accept my hon. Friend's observation and I would go further. Usually these powers can be used most effectively when a company is in a monopoly position, but a sanction is possible under the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading. Where these powers exist they can be referred and investigated and action taken. But the effect of nationalised industries is that in many areas they are de facto monopolies.
I do not think this is a tremendously contentious view. After all, why do we set up the Post Office Users' National Council and the consumer councils of the nationalised industries?
This is all part of our worry—as much in the Labour Party as among the Opposition—about some of the practices

of nationalised industries. Disconnections by electricity boards are a classic example of monopoly power. There must be protection against unrestrained use of these powers. The Government's new clause, to which I give a limited welcome, shows that they accept a measure of what I am saying. The principle behind it was initiated by the right hon. Member for Sunderland North. I make that point before anyone says that this is a dangerous, reactionary, right-wing Tory move.
We have digressed into the subject of loss leaders, but the only answer that we have been given is that the overall financial targets of the corporations are protection against individual unfair pricing. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions. No doubt they will be able to say whether they think that that protection will be adequate if there is a small shipyard in their constituency that does not come under the Bill, or if a small company wants to set up there in one of the areas in which these corporations will be working.
Am I right in believing—we have had no clear statement on this—that the reason for the reference in the new clause to only one of the corporations, when surely in equity the principle applies to both, is the Government's argument that no companies could be affected in the aircraft industry? If so, that is a limited approach to aircraft manufacture. In aircraft production, as in shipbuilding, an enormous number of items are bought in. The method of operating procurement policies by the corporations could discriminate heavily against certain aircraft companies.
It is difficult to see why this principle is not accepted for both industries. Our new clause would merely provide the same protection for those aggrieved by the British Aerospace as for those aggrieved by British Shipbuilders. This is an important area for the Government to tackle. They talk of the need for fixed frontiers and a vigorous and profitable private sector. However, if people are going to compete in these fields, they must feel that they have proper protection against public corporations which, perhaps not intentionally but by over-zealous pursuit of commercial objectives, discriminate unfairly against them.
6.45 p.m.
We are obviously concerned about the existing companies, but the Minister's answer suggested that no one in his Department had considered the possibility of a new company starting up in any of these activities. He dealt only with the existing situation. No doubt the intention is that these corporations will last for a considerable period, so someone might start producing, for example, slow speed marine engines, and someone else could decide on an activity which would make him a customer of the first company. Someone might go into the aerospace industry or set up as a components manufacturer.
These people should have the same protection as is proposed for shipbuilding and ship repairing. If the Government are sincere in their attempt to establish this principle, they should accept the amendments to New Clause 1 along with New Clause 2. I should like to know whether, if New Clause 1 and the amendments to it are accepted, New Clause 2 will be necessary. That would ensure the same principle for both corporations and that is the right way to tackle this important matter.

Mr. Frederick Willey: As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) will appreciate, I can give a stronger welcome to the new clause, which is substantially the one that I put down in Committee. I appreciate the Government having brought it forward. I differ from the hon. Member. I did not welcome the fact that the Bill deals with two industries at once and I speak only for shipbuilding and ship repairing. The same goes for the clause.
I put forward my new clause in Committee—here again, I differ from the hon. Gentleman—because although I did not support the Conservative amendments. I felt that this was a case not of anticipating malpractices but of affording people a legislative safeguard if they fear that malpractices are possible. I realised that small shipbuilders who were left outside the Bill might fear unfair competition.
I was also concerned, particularly, about the closure of Greenwells in my constituency. This is a State yard which has been closed during our Committee proceedings. We are trying to attract

private enterprise to reopen it. I felt that the least that I could do was to try to reassure anyone who reopened it that he would be safeguarded against unfair competition. That is why I am satisfied.
I was a little concerned when the Minister seemed surprised by the suggestion that this provision should apply also to ship repair. It is clear that the intention is to apply the new clause to ship repair as well as shipbuilding. My major concern, because of the closure of Greenwells, was with ship repair. I still have some hesitation about the reference to sale of ships, but here, too, the Government's new clause is acceptable in the context of shipbuilding. I have discussed this matter with the SRNA.
At least the Government have been consistent in following precedent. The precedent is important because we want to ensure that there is a simple and expeditious procedure for any complaint to be immediately examined and the complainant satisfied. That is what the clause does. For that reason, speaking within the confines of shipbuilding and ship repairing, I am well satisfied with it.

Mr. Tebbit: We are grateful to Mr. Speaker whose selection of amendments and new clauses enables us to discuss unfair competition broadly in this debate.
The point underlined so well by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is that there is a need, if additional firms are to continue in industry outside the public sector, for clear and proper provisions for appeal against unfair competition. I find it remarkable, though perhaps not surprising, that the Secretary of State has accepted that this concept should apply to the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, but not to the aircraft industry.
Some firms will continue in business in the private sector. If the Under-Secretary of State does not know—presumably he does not know, or the Government would have done something about it—there is, for example, Flight Refuelling Limited which, amongst other things, specialises in the manufacture of targets. These are expensive items, Doughty of Cheltenham manufactures a large range of components. Marshalls of Cambridge


specialises in aircraft repair and the fitting out of what are known as green air frames.
To some extent, some of these problems could be resolved by restrictions on the diversification possibilities of the proposed British Aerospace corporation, but not altogether. The fitting out of air frames, the repair of aircraft and the manufacture of targets is already undertaken by firms which are being brought into State ownership by the Bill. Therefore, that would not constitute diversification.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) pointed out that there is to be no legislative bar on new firms coming into the manufacture of aircraft, or ships for that matter, under this legislation. If the Under-Secretary of State could for a moment restrain himself from nattering to the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation and pay some attention to what is going on, it is just possible that he might do himself a service because he might then be able to answer first time round the points being made, instead of realising that he has not heard a word because of his incessant nattering.
I was saying that there seems to be no legislative bar—if the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation could restrain himself, it would be useful.

The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell): Pompous ass.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not know whether "Pompous ass" is the kind of parliamentary expression that we should hear from the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation. I do not know what his functions are, except to sit there nattering to the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. If he could manage to stay quiet and keep out of this matter, as he does not understand it, it would be helpful to the debate.
I was saying for about the third time —now that I have the Under-Secretary's attention—that there appears to be no legislative bar on new companies coming into aircraft manufacture. Therefore, the Government presumably would not be unhappy if a new firm—for example, one of the American manufacturers of light

aircraft—were to consider coming to Britain. Some have already considered coming here, but have decided not to do so for reasons which do not concern us today.
What would happen if the Piper Aircraft Company were to come to Britain to manufacture aircraft? Would it be unprotected against unfair competition although Marathon, an American-owned company in the shipbuilding industry, would be protected? What is the logic in the Government's thinking of protecting one industry, but not the other? Did they not appreciate that somebody else might want to manufacture in this country? Do they not want anybody else to come into aircraft manufacture?
It is becoming generally known that it is the intention of the Organising Committee for British Aerospace—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to have assistance somewhere. It is now becoming obvious that amongst the decisions, which have probably been made by the Organising Committee for British Aerospace, is a decision to close the BAC factories at Weybridge and Hurn and that it may now he discussing the moving of work from the factories at Dunsfold and Kingston to the factory at Hatfield, which is a marginal seat.
I do not know what that fellow on the Treasury Bench with his feet on the Table is nattering about now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is difficult to make oneself heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. With all these disturbances I am having great difficulty in following the argument. I appeal to hon. Members to allow the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to carry on with his speech uninterrupted.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As a result of these impending factory closures, many highly skilled men and very good facilities will be available. I hope that the Government will be in-interested in trying to bring in outside firms to take over those facilities in order to provide new jobs. It can be done. Fairey Aviation has landed a contract for $100 million worth of production, but not in Britain because of the Government's activities.
We could get work into this country outside the public sector in those factories which the Organising Committee for British Aerospace is now proposing to abandon, but we shall not get outside companies to come in unless they are guaranteed as much protection as the shipbuilding industry. The lack of a clause of this nature would be a further disincentive to that inward investment in this country which would provide the jobs which will be sorely needed in the aircraft industry to replace those which will be lost when the Bill is enacted, if that misfortune should befall the industry.
I hope that in reply the Minister will tell us why only the shipbuilding industry needs the provisions of New Clause 1 and why there are no similar provisions for the aircraft industry.

Mr. John Evans: As my constituency is 25 miles from the sea and as some hon. Members may wonder about my interest in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, I should make it clear that when I left school at 15 years of age I went into the Swan Hunter shipyard on Tyneside where I served my apprenticeship as a fitter. I have since worked in every shipbuilding and ship repair yard on Tyneside, Wearside and in three yards on the Tees. I left the employment of Swan Hunter—

Mr. W. E. Garrett: My hon. Friend is being modest. I think that he should mention that he spent some years at sea sailing the ships he helped to build.

Mr. Evans: I was going to mention that later.
I left the shipyards in February 1974 when I was elected to this House. I collected my tools from the Swan Hunter shipyard at Hebburn, and they are still in my garage. If political misfortune should ever befall me, I should be happy to go back to work with my colleagues in the shipbuilding industry.
Frankly, if we do not nationalise the shipbuilding industry quickly, there will be very little of that industry left on the North-East Coast or on Merseyside.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who would not give way earlier, asked whether, if the industry did not prove profitable, it would be closed down. The hon. Gentleman answered the question himself by saying "No". Is the

hon. Gentleman aware that there has not been a profitable shipbuilding firm in Great Britain for the past 25 years? Each and every one has been sustained by Government grants, handouts, investment grants in regional areas or Government orders for warships for the Navy. If they had been left to their commercial selves they would have collapsed a long time ago.
7.0 p.m.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, this is not the first reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry. There was a reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry in the late 1960s following the Geddes report. On that occasion under a Labour Government we poured hundreds of millions of pounds into the British shipbuilding industry, but we left it in the hands of private enterprise, even though workers—I use the word "workers" and not the phrase "trade unionists", which Opposition Members seem to be trying to use to divide them into two different camps—in the industry were demanding that if the Government were pouring millions of pounds into the industry it should be brought under public ownership. However, it was not. What was the end product of the Geddes reorganisation? It was the virtual collapse of the shipbuilding industry.
We are addressing ourselves in this clause to unfair competition. I welcome anything that will do anything to do away with that. We should deal with a far more important aspect of unfair competition, which has worried workers and employers in the shipbuilding industry for many years, and that is the degree of unfair competition from shipyards abroad. I should like to see something in the Bill which would insist that, if the Government are satisfied that there is unfair competition, from continental or Japanese shipyards, or new shipyards in other parts of the world financed by American or even British capital, they will take action to protect the British shipbuilding industry. That is one of the main worries of all those who work in the industry.
We all recognise that it is a shrinking industry. The workers certainly recognise only too clearly that it is a shrinking industry, and they are neither fools nor are they blind; they can read trade figures and statistics as well as anyone


else. They are well aware of the decline of the British share of the world shipbuilding order book, much of that due to unfair competition.
Putting that on one side, the argument about investment in the industry has always fallen on deaf ears under a Labour Government and certainly has fallen on deaf ears under a Conservative Government. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, while we give consideration to unfair competition in the domestic scene, it is equally important, indeed, more important, that we give consideration to unfair competition on the international scene.
When one considers the record of nationalised industries over the last few years, the protection that the public have is far better in a nationalised industry than in most industries in the private sector. One of the areas from which the British public get considerable assistance is the Press. It is only too happy to chase or to harry or to, look, into any misdemeanour alleged against nationalised industry as far as the consumer is concerned. I am sure that when the day dawns for the shipbuilding industry to run down, with the consequent pay offs, it will be national headlines in the national Press. There were never any headlines in anyone's Press when the shipyards of Tyneside and Merseyside were paying off hundreds of thousands of workers just before the public holidays, at Christmas and at Easter. No one was interested in us then. No doubt they will be interested in the future whenever there is a rundown of an industry.
As for unfair competition, there obviously will be times when the nationalised boards will have to give consideration to the overall position, to the employment prospects of people in the industry. Shipbuilding and ship repairing are largely based on the development regions. Certainly, no one can deny that it is one of the major employers in the North-East of England, on Clydeside and on Merseyside. Essential judgments will sometimes, as in the past, have to be made not based entirely on commercial criteria.
As for unfair competition and the prospects for the industry, this Bill is one of the greatest examples of ensuring that

the business of this industry is conducted in an open, fully public fashion, if our proposals on worker participation are put fully into operation. If we can ensure that the workers are taking part in all decisions on pricing, ordering, employment prospects and on what the nationalised boards' policy is to suppliers in the industry, then we shall not go very far wrong. One of the things a successful industry needs is a large number of suppliers. This is certainly true of industry in the North-East and on Merseyside. It is in the nature of the industry that it must have outside suppliers providing a wide variety of materials and a wide variety of labour. If that continues in the future I shall be satisfied in that respect as a shipbuilding worker.
I hope that the Minister will address himself to the much wider problem of unfair competition when it comes from abroad and puts the jobs of thousands of workers at risk.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I recognise that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) speaks with the sincerity of a man who was an apprentice on the shop floor and who knows his industry. I was an apprentice on the shop floor in the aircraft industry. I have much in common with his feelings that the workers ought to have an opportunity and a chance to take part in running their own industry. I fear that there is a wider gulf between the hon. Gentleman and his own Minister than there is between him and me. I shall demonstrate that in terms of the new clauses.
First, the hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that nationalisation would save jobs, but the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said in a previous debate that he did not accept that nationalisation would save jobs. The difference between those two statements is the reality of what is going to be nationalisation as opposed to that which has been promised. No one regrets that more than I do. However, the hon. Gentleman having worked on the slipways will know that the only people who can save jobs are the customers. That is the only way in which one can have a full shipyard or full production line in an aircraft factory.

Mr. John Evans: May I just clarify what I meant to say—I said it in the


heat of the moment—rather than what the hon. Gentleman alleged I said? What I intended to say was that if the industry is not nationalised there will be very little industry left if it is left in private hands. In that context nationalisation will save jobs.

Mr. Warren: That would be acceptable if the Government could afford to nationalise and put in the money required to save jobs. The hon. Gentleman was here when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the £1,000 million cuts in Government expenditure last week, and he knows full well that the Government simply have not got the money to save the jobs which he and his fellow shipyard workers believe can be saved. There is considerable divergence among trade union opinion from the view that it is only the customer who can save jobs. because workers have believed the propaganda of the present Government which has been drenching Britain with the statement that nationalisation can save jobs.
We have never heard how much it will cost to nationalise these industries or whence the money will come to run them. At a rough guess, the nearest one can get—I should be delighted if the Minister could deny it—we think that about £400 million to £500 million will be needed. Where will it come from? Last week £1,000 million was cut and next week we shall need to find £500 million. Where is all this money to be found? Is it to be borrowed, or will it come from taxation? These are the essential questions that the workers have the right to have answered.
The House will notice that my name is missing from the supporters of New Clause 2. That is because I approach that clause and New Clause 1 with reluctance. I expect that I shall support both of them in the Lobby if there is a Division. However, the reason I support them with reluctance is that in essence they sum up the whole burden of what is nationalisation. Hundreds of people will be employed—probably, they can come from the slipways and production lines—to take up residence to hear the complaints, because the complaints will be legion.
There is talk in the papers about 3,000 jobs possibly being saved at the Driver

and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea, which was recently opened. That cost half as much as Concorde, but it will never get off the ground. Apparently, there are 3,000 people there who are willing and able to take on new jobs in the Civil Service. I should not be surprised to see the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre used as a base for complaints about these two industries.
That may sound farcical but we should look at the contentions that will arise. Earlier we passed Government Amendment No. 1. We let it slide past—I suppose because one does not want to lead the Government too clearly forward into the future. However, the Government have left a greater mess behind them with that amendment than they had before they submitted it. We shall have no shortage of complaints.
I want to give three examples to show how much this complaints machinery will be required. The Government have blandly stated that rotary-wing aircraft will be left out. That is marvellous. They probably all think that that means Westland Aircraft. As an aeronautical engineer I should be prepared to contend with any hon. Member or any Minister's adviser as to what a rotary-wing aircraft is. Is not the multi-rôle combat aircraft a rotary-wing aircraft? It swings its wings.
What about the complaints that will come from the key supplier for the whole MRCA programme? Who is that key supplier? It is no one in Britain, the United States, France, West Germany or Italy. It happens to be the Soviet Union that supplies the key titanium powder for the main aircraft for the defence of Britain in the 1980s. I speak with some authority as the treasurer of the Anglo-Soviet Parliamentary Committee—when I took over we were in the red, but now we are in the blue.
The complaints will not be from the chap down the road in one of the 296 companies concerned. They will come from foreign suppliers who will want to know the pricing policy of the British Government and the British Aerospace Corporation's instructions. Will they have preferential treatment and will they have the right to single source selection tenders? The machinery of the new clauses is vital for these two industries and for the ship repairing industry.
Perhaps the Boeing Aircraft Company, the MacDonnell Aircraft Company and Lockheed, perhaps even Marcel Dassault, will decide after our industry's nationalisation to come to this country and set up their own businesses to take advantage of the redundant workers who will be thrown on the scrap heap because of the nationalisation of the British aircraft industry. Will they have direct access to that machinery? They ought to have it. They will probably have a registered office in this country, which will allow them to make a complaint as they wish.
What will the complaints be about? Looking hack at Government Amendment No. 1, which was passed earlier, once again we have skated over the question of what is the manufacture of a complete aircraft. Hon. Members know full well—all those who sat through the 58 sittings of the Committee—that no one in the world manufactures a complete aircraft. An aircraft is defined usually as being one-third airframe, one-third engines and one-third equipment. Of the one-third airframe made by the companies to be nationalised, at least half is generally bought from other suppliers; so we end up with about 16 per cent. of an aircraft being made by the companies to be nationalised. Therefore, there is no such thing as the manufacture of a complete aicraft by one company, so immediately complaints can arise.
I do not want the House to think that I am splitting hairs. The people concerned will be up against skilled professionals looking for trouble with the British Aerospace Corporation. This complaints machinery must be there not only for shipbuilding but certainly for aviation.
On another section of the requirement for the complaints machinery, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has already referred to the equipment suppliers. It would be very interesting to see the relationship between the Ferranti Company—a nationalised company—and the British Aerospace Corporation when that corporation, in some of its component parts, will have already tried to embark on competition with, say, the Ferranti Company, let alone suppliers such as Smiths or Marconi, and let alone people such as Litton coming in from abroad.
Will these people be allowed to complain? Who will be assured that in making the complaint he will be properly represented? Will he have to have counsel to represent him? What is the form of representation that is acceptable to the Minister?
7.15 p.m.
The last particular point I make is on pricing. It is a well known fact that there are such things as loss leaders. However, what I fear about nationalised corporations is that they tend to put out products and services that are all loss leaders in order to price others out of the market. It is interesting to look at the prices quoted by many companies today in the transport industry and by the British Steel Corporation, which have to compete with others to see whether they are supplying the goods and services that they are offering at a price that means a profit or a loss. Too frequently one finds in the year's end accounts that most of them must have been supplied at a loss, or they would not end up in the deficit position that they do.
I am afraid that there will be a lot of what is called in industry the cooking of overheads. This will entail tremendous investigations as to, for instance, whether the Ministry of Defence technical costs department will be allowed to reveal statistics to people making complaints about the overhead structure approved in companies which make up the British Aerospace Corporation.
What about people who say "I am making an unmanned aircraft; other people call it a guided missile; therefore, it cannot be in competition with anything that you make, because you have already precluded unmanned aircraft from the Bill."? What about that kind of complaint? Will people be allowed to manufacture? Will the British Aerospace Corporation come back into the complaints machinery and enter a complaint? The corporation ought to have a right to complain about unfair competition.
In summary, it is with reluctance that I approach the need for these two new clauses, because while we battle on with the minutiae of complaints and procedural wrangles, all that will happen is that the customers whom the hon. Member for Newton and I want to see for


the shipyards, production lines and factories in Britain, will have gone to the foreigners who will have got the contracts.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: This debate and the Bill are to involve us in three long days on the Floor of the House. It is not for me to quibble too much. However, far too much time has been allocated for the Report stage. The justification for my complaints about the time has already been made clear by the way in which we are slowly proceeding through the Bill and are slowly getting involved in repetitive arguments. The Minister may have a fresher mind than many of us who served on the long Committee stage and he may have some more cheery ideas. However, I and many others have run outof ideas.
I am not too enthusiastic about the new clause being introduced. I should have preferred to leave it to British Shipbuilders or the British Aerospace Corporation to sort out particular problems themselves. We are getting a little too rigid in our approach to complaints from wherever they come. We have tipped the balance in the other direction. As the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) said, there is a consumer complaints council for virtually every commodity that is produced or sold by the State or is part of the State's trading agencies. By and large, they seem to work. At least, they take some of the pressure off the mailbags of Members of Parliament—not much, but a little.
The new clause has obviously been proposed to placate some of my hon. Friends and possibly to placate some Opposition Members.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman has said that the matter should be left to the Corporation to sort out. It will be judge and jury on its own cause and in its own interest. How would he feel if he let the Bill go through without the clause and a company came to his constituency and employed 150 men who were doing a good job but who were a bit of an embarrassment and so the corporation took a contract as a loss leader which resulted in the firm being closed down and 150 people losing their jobs? If the trade unions came to him and asked if he could help them, he would have to say that he argued in the House

that such people should not have a right of redress.

Mr. Garrett: It is clear that the hon. Member did not grasp what I was trying to say, or perhaps I did not explain myself fully. Too much rigidity is being imposed on the corporation, but that is not to say that a genuine complaint against the corporation should be ignored or pushed aside. I should like the corporation to have the opportunity of deciding its own mechanism and procedures. That would be worth a try, but if it did not work, we could come back, as we have before, with a miscellaneous provisions Bill. There is too much rigidity and the job of the corporation is being hog-tied when it should be given freedom.
Many big commercial organisations have established procedures which, by and large, ensure that customers and employers—whether managing directors or ordinary staff—obtain a good deal in conditions of employment, and rates of pay. We should leave it like that, but it is probably too late to start on that line of thinking.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East): My hon. Friend has said that not many hon. Members on this side of the House support the clause. As that has gone on record, and as the Government have sought not to nationalise the small Drypool shipyard on Humberside, I must put on record that the workers there fear that they may be left out when orders are placed, and they would welcome the clause.

Mr. Garrett: There we are. That is another expression of opinion. If the Report stage lasted six days, all sorts of opinions would be expressed on this controversial clause, and there would still not be enough time.
The clause gives the trade unions a say in pricing policy. If they believe that the pricing policy is cast too low and that that stops them from earning a higher wage, they will have a say at district, regional and national level in the pricing policy of the ships and in some of the commodities brought in for the manufacture of those ships. I can see the arguments for that, but the clause could have been left out. We could have stuck to the original Bill and let the corporation


get on with it instead of imposing more bureaucracy.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome the two new clauses but I have to admit to some reservations. I wonder whether the clauses are like the guarantee one has when one buys a new product which, if one makes the mistake of sending it back to the manufacturer, might lead to one losing rights rather than gaining them. What is the meaning of the sentence which reads:
that the complainant has a reasonable case to make in support of it, shall afford the complainant and British Shipbuilders an opportunity of making representations in relation to the matter to a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
Does that afford the right of legal representation to the complainant or is the machinery to be set up by the Department and the corporation such that the corporation will be judge and jury in its own case? I press that on the Minister because if we pass clauses which take away rights which are probably intrinsic, we shall achieve nothing.
I congratulate the Government on the clauses, albeit that they are tabled with the encouragement of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), because they are right to recognise the possibility of the corporations acting unfairly and, and more important, to recognise the value of competition between private enterprise and the State sector. That is a hopeful conversion to a view that hon. Members on this side of the House have held for many years. Hon. Members on the other side are being forced to recognise that view because they know that one of the tragedies of the State-owned industries is the difficulty of creating bench marks for success against which to measure performance.
In the situation which we are now creating for both the shipbuilding and aircraft industries, any competition that is left will help those industries and the corporations to ensure efficiency. The Minister scarcely needs me to remind him of the effect that British Caledonian—a privately owned company—had on British Airways and the effect on British Caledonian of the shuttle service which was introduced by British Airways. By the same token, the British Airways decision to fly to Manchester, Birmingham and

Glasgow was one reason why British Rail recognised that they must introduce a train service to those places which was as good as, if not better than, the service offered by the airways. In consequence, Inter-City was born and that has drawn back a large number of passengers who would otherwise have used the domestic services operated by British Caledonian and British Airways. That was a good thing.
One of the arch-exponents of such a system is the Foreign Secretary who has said that the State should set up companies in competition with private enterprise to create greater competition and thus more efficiency. The right of people to object to the practices of British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders must be to the benefit of both those corporations.
Which of us who has arrived home before the Olympics finished on the television has not watched the competition of those superb athletes and seen each one of them exact the best that he possibly can from his performance? We have watched world records tumbling this year, and we know that this is all the result of excellence in performance. If we are to overcome some of the appalling problems that face us, we must achieve excellence in this country in all we do.
7.30 p.m.
One of the tragedies of the concept of State ownership, which on paper looks so attractive, is that it fails to remove the vices of human beings. One vice, alas, is that one may become inefficient and lazy. We are all subject to that vice. Fortunately, we have our constituents and the Press to probe us and keep us on the ball. But in the past when State-owned industries have been prodded hard by a particular company, they have taken action by subsuming that company within the nationalised industry. Like all monopolies and monoliths, the tendency is to destroy all that which causes discomfort. In that situation inefficiency becomes rampant. In setting up State organisations, we must not at the same time set uo a smokescreen or public relations exercise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) and several hon. Members spoke about the need for foreign companies to set up operations


in the United Kingdom. We must not deny those organisations the facilities to set up enterprises in this country by loading the dice against them via State organisations. We must guard against such action in every possible way.
What matters in our country at the present time is that we should organise the system to provide the maximum possible number of jobs. I am not so much concerned about economic structures as to provide a system in which there are enough jobs to go around. Therefore, if a foreign company wants to come into the United Kingdom, I hope that it will not be prevented from so doing. The more jobs that come to the United Kingdom the better it will be for the wealth of our nation. We need to attract all the jobs we can.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) said that he had worked for Swan Hunter and he spoke of unfair competition. It that his reason for suggesting that Britain supplied only 3 per cent. of the world's shipping needs? Was he laying that at the door of unfair competition, or was he arguing that it was the other chap who was always breaking the rules?

Mr. John Evans: I was addressing myself to a specific case rather than to the subject of the ailments in the industry. The major reason for the collapse of the British shipbuilding industry was the complete lack of investment in British industry since 1945. If the Geddes Report had not been adopted, substantial sums of money would not have been pumped into the shipbuilding industry for purposes of modernisation and the industry would have collapsed long ago.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that in the last five years, apart from Harland and Wolff, a sum of £113 million of Government money has gone into the British shipbuilding industry. Last year, Harland and Wolff alone received £137 million and a further £60 million in outright grant. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not saying that the Government put that into the industry for purposes other than investment.
Is it not too easy to find a popular scapegoat? Is not investment the one scapegoat that everybody employs for

purposes of argument? Is it not often said "If only we had more investment, we could do this, that, or the other"? It is a combination of all these factors. It is a mistake to assume that there is one simple touchstone of which it can be said "If that were right, all else would be right".

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not the EEC bear some responsibility?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I shall not follow my hon. Friend up the Common Market path because if I were to do so I am sure that I should be out of order.
We must not have too firmly in our minds the subject of possible unfairness because that will only prevent us from achieving what we want. I appreciate that no Japanese owner is allowed to buy a ship that is not made in Japan. I see no reason why we should not have a similar approach on the part of our Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have obviously stirred up some of my hon. Friends as well as Labour Members. I am trying to say that we have not been as clever in our appraoch as we might have been.
After all, several nationalised industries have gone abroad for their ships. If we pour money into those industries, surely we should expect them to give a few orders to our own shipping industry. It is surely not unreasonable to suggest that those industries should first buy British. It upsets me to see British policemen driving around in German motor cars or sitting astride German motor cycles. Can it truly be said that the German products are superior to British manufacture, or is it all affectation?

Mr. Tebbit: The fact that our police may drive foreign motor cars does not put our police force ahead of foreign police forces. The fact that they drive a certain make of car may make them slower in pursuit of a criminal who may be driving another make of motor car. However, in regard to our airlines we should be concerned that we do not wreck our chances by giving too much false protection to our own manufacturing industry.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. All I am saying is that if we pour vast sums of money into nationalised industries, it is surely


not unreasonable for those industries to give at least a measure of protection to our own manfacturing industry, particularly in terms of shipbuilding, in which we are suffering vast over-production.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not my hon. Friend accept that even if we regarded that as a good idea which would benefit Great Britain, it would be unlawful under the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Again I shall not follow my hon. Friend into EEC matters since I may offend the rules of order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings mentioned the achievements of Flight Refuelling Limited and Marshalls of Cambridge. I have had the privilege of visiting both companies and I am sure that the House is aware that Flight Refuelling has an enormous export market and is the only exponent of a remarkable device to enable refuelling to take place in the air. By the same token, Sir Arthur Marshall has built up an enviable reputation among all those involved in the aircraft industry for the way he is able to refurbish aircraft. Both these companies give us just cause to be proud.
We do not want to see British Aerospace so monolithic and monopolistic that we shall be forced into a position in which these companies cannot continue. Were they to feel that unfair competition had been brought to bear on them, surely they should have the right, as the new clause would give them the right, to object in the strongest possible terms.
I welcome the new clauses for the reasons I have given. I welcome them because I think that competition is a good thing. I welcome them because I think that the Government have shown that they recognise the need to maintain a private sector in these two areas which will be dominated by State companies.
I hope that the Minister will satisfy me over the point I have raised. It would be wrong to limit the rights which must exist if we are to have fair competition. I shall support both these clauses.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I welcome this new clause because I welcome competition between publicly owned industries and the private sector of industry. I see no reason why nationalised industries should have anything to fear from com-

petition as long as it is fair. I should have liked the clause to go a little further.
I hope I am right in believing that when British Shipbuilders is set up, the various units inside it, such as Vosper Thorneycroft Limited will retain a separate entity and certain independence. I hope there will be some system whereby Vosper Thorneycroft can make a complaint against British Shipbuilders nationally if it thinks it has been unfairly treated. I am very much in favour of competition inside the nationalised industries. A good example of this is the British Transport Docks Board.
One thing which I fear from the setting up of the British Shipbuilding Corporation is that the Bill may allow Ministers to try to put pressure on the corporation to do things which are not commercially correct. It is right that ships should be built where they can be built most efficiently and not where there is high unemployment, or because some particular area fits in with someone's regional policy. If the shipbuilding industry is to survive, it must be efficient, and it can be efficient only if it is not interfered with from the outside.
This Bill has been much improved in Committee. The fears expressed to me by many of my constituents when it was first published have been very largely allayed by assurances that each individual unit inside British Shipbuilders will have its own autonomy. I hope that the Minister will reassert that tonight.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) for the genuine way in which he has expressed the concern of his constituents. I know that he feels strongly about this matter and I shall certainly take to heart what he has said and bear it in mind in future deliberations.
I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). In contrasting his former overalls with the costume certain hon. Gentlemen opposite have appeared in this afternoon it is obvious that he speaks with the authentic voice of the shipyards. I wish that his sentiments were echoed on the Conservative Benches.
This is supposed to be one of the major contentious issues of the Bill. We had a great deal of lamenting and complaining from the Opposition in Committee, and claims were made that there would be unfair trade practices. We heard a great deal about the need to shackle British Shipbuilders. In fact, we had a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth upstairs which has hardly been matched by the attendance on the Opposition Benches tonight. It makes me wonder just how seriously the Conservatives take this matter.
While I urge the acceptance of New Clause 1, the Government cannot accept New Clause 2 or the Opposition amendments. Conservatives must come clean. Every time we discuss a nationalisation issue they grunt and groan, and want to shackle and nobble the new nationalised industry with all the rules and regulations they can devise to limit commercial freedom. Then, when the legislation has passed to the statute book they spend hours of their time claiming that these industries cannot make profits because there is too much ministerial interference.
They must make up their minds about whether they want to lay down all these rules and regulations or to allow the industries a certain measure of commercial freedom. From the ambivalent attitudes expressed tonight it is obvious they have not made up their minds at all. Although the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) says he is in favour of the new clause, his motives are entirely different from those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). We welcome my right hon. Friend's contribution and his acquiescence in this clause, because his is the real concern of the shipyards and their workers. This is hardly the kind of concern which is echoed from the Tory Benches.
I have been asked by the hon. Member for Bridgwater for more information on the definitional aspects of the new clause. The definition we have included is the same as the wording in Section 30 of the Iron and Steel Act 1967. That section was restricted to the selling of certain iron and steel products. In this clause we are talking about the sale of ships and ship repair services.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater talks about the procurement of materials. I am sure that he wants to go back to the 1855 Undue Preference Obligations placed on the railways. He seems to say that neither British Steel nor British Shipbuilders should be able to act commercially. But we want them to have a measure of commercial freedom and the right to negotiate with each other. Assurances were given to hon. Gentlemen in Committee and I give those assurances once more. This is the way in which we regard the activities of the two corporations.
Hon. Members know that the situation in the aircraft industry is very different from that in the shipbuilding industry. The major aircraft manufacturers will be taken into public ownership by the Bill. Perhaps the only significant example to be excluded will be Brittan Norman, which makes light aircraft mostly assembled outside this country. The Conservatives must know that there are no other companies which would be affected which make complete fixed wing planes or guided weapons. They must recognise, therefore, that a situation exists in the aircraft industry different from that in the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Tebbit: Even though there seems to be no reason why Westland Aircraft could not go into fixed-wing production, and although there is no good reason why we should not encourage foreign manufacturers to come here and set up manufacturing facilities, as they will, why is it that what would be a shackle on the aircraft industry is a good thing for the shipbuilding industry? Why does the Minister not have the courage to do the same thing in both industries?

Mr. Huckfield: From his behaviour in Standing Committee I thought that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was learning a tiny bit about the shipbuilding industry. We have now seen that he did not. He must realise that we are dealing with totally different situations. Shortly the chairmen of both the organising committees will want to make a formal declaration of fair trading practice. I believe that covers the hon. Member's point.
The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) seemed to be talking as though


we were taking over not only aircraft manufacturers but the component firms. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill. He was on the Standing Committee for a long time and he must know that the companies to be taken over are specified in the schedule. These companies will be covered by a formal declaration of fair trading practice shortly to be issued by the two chairmen.

Mr. Warren: Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the declaration of fair trading practice will include a statement that in no circumstances will British Aerospace compete with any other company in the British aircraft industry?

Mr. Huckfield: Before the hon. Gentleman intervened I said that the Conservatives wanted to shackle the nationalised industries with all kinds of obligations before they got off the ground. What the hon. Gentleman just said provides a perfect example of the shackling and nobbling of these industries that the Conservatives want, and that is why they oppose the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton raised a genuine fear of shipyard workers about foreign competition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also very much concerned about it and we are having continual discussions on the matter in the EEC and OECD. We shall take to heart the fears that my hon. Friend expressed. It is only fitting, right and proper that he should raise them in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wall-send (Mr. Garrett) expressed another fear that has been put forward quite often, namely, that in introducing these provisions in the Bill we are going too far. I recognise that a number of my hon. Friends have reservations in that direction.
When the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) talks about the guarantee, we envisage a situation in which the complainant would be able to be legally represented before the person appointed by the Secretary of State to consider his case. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman does not regard that as signing away anyone's rights.
Finally, I urge the House to accept New Clause 1 and to reject New Clause 2 and

the Opposition amendments. I would also hope that the Conservatives would have a little more confidence in their own fair trading legislation of 1973, because a great many of the points they have been trying to make this evening will be covered by the legislation they put on the statute book. If they continue to press their amendments, they can have little optimism or confidence in their own Act.

Mr. Tom King: Let me explain why we cannot accept the Under-Secretary's answer and why we shall be forced to press the matter to a Division. The point about the Fair Trading Act was covered in Committee. It could take up to three years for a complaint to be dealt with under that procedure, which is designed for a quite diffeernt series of matters.
I do not understand why it is respectable for the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to welcome some form of fair trading provision and for that to show his high standing and moral approach but is highly disreputable and devious for us to agree with him.
The Under-Secretary's answer was extremely disappointing because it was totally illogical. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) asked why something which is good for one corporation should be regarded as an appalling Tory shackle for the other. I was very disappointed with the speech by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North. He said that he agreed with the principle and that it was right but that he was here to represent a shipbuilding and ship repairing constituency and that therefore he was not interested in what was happening on the aircraft side. He is a Member of this House and he is dealing with a Bill which he was appointed by the House to consider in Committee. He is a senior Member of the House and it is not enough for him to say that he is concerned only with the part of the Bill which affects his constituency.

Mr. Willey: I am saying merely that from my experience of shipbuilding and ship repairing what is proposed is appropriate for those industries. Nothing has been put to me to show that the same situation applies to aircraft.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman recognises the principle and the probblems that can occur in any part of industry between a nationalised concern and an independent private undertaking. He says that unless evidence is shown to him that a situation exists in an industry he cannot accept that it does. I believe that he should have preserved his principles in the matter and recognised the force of the argument.
We are under the pressure of the guillotine and therefore I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment (b) proposed to the proposed clause:

to leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert the words
'one or more of the activities specified in Section 2(1) or (2) above, other than—(a) a Corporation, or'.—[Mr. Tom King.]

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed clause be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 305.

[For Division List No. 283 see col. 601]

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and this day], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of tire Business to be concluded.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL: INTERIM PAYMENTS

'An Arbitration Tribunal shall have power to order the making of an interim payment in respect of the compensation for any securities if so requested by the relevant stockholders' representative.'—[Mr. Trotter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we are to take New Clause 6—Value of Subsidiary Company.
We are also to take the following amendments:
No. 230, in Clause 36, page 48, leave out lines 35 to 42, and insert:
'(6) Where after the date of transfer, a person submits a claim in writing to the Secretary of State for compensation to be paid to him under this Act, the Secretary of State shall within six months of that date make a provisional estimate of any compensation so payable and compensation stock equal in value to 90 per cent. of that amount shall forthwith be issued to, or at the direction of that person or his successor in title.
(7) Where the amount of compensation stock issued to a person under subsection (6) above is found to be less or more than the net amount of compensation falling to be paid under section 35 above, the deficiency shall be supplied to, or the excess repaid by, that person.'.
No. 294, in Clause 38, page 52, line 20, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 22 and insert:
'the arbitration tribunal, in determining the base value of the company's securities in accordance with subsection (1) above, may have regard to'.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Trotter: The importance of arbitration arises because of the complexity of the compensation terms in so much of the Bill. The Secretary of State told the House when first introducing his nationalisation proposals nearly two years ago, on 31st July 1974, that there was to be fair compensation, yet we have before us provisions which are complex and which must inevitably be basically unfair, because they are based on an unsound foundation related to the value of quoted public companies when there are practically no quoted public companies being nationalised.
Of the four aircraft companies not one is quoted. Of the 12 ship repair companies, not one is quoted. Of the five marine engine builders, not one is quoted. Of the three training companies, not one is quoted. Of the 19 shipbuilders, one, the smallest, is quoted. Out of these four industries the only one small shipbuilder is a quoted company and none of the other companies is quoted at all. We have a completely artificial basis applied to the valuation of these great industries, a basis which is bound to give rise to great difficulty and great uncertainty.
The unfairness of the whole principle can be seen from the fact that the hypothetical Stock Exchange values upon which this is supposed to be based relate to small transfers of shares and not to the


takeover of a whole business. A company like Vosper Thorneycroft estimates that the compensation it might receive under these proposals could be as low as £4 million, despite the fact that its assets have a value of £12 million and its annual profit is running at a rate of £4 million.
Who has ever heard in a fair society of a company being taken over on a basis of one year's profits. It may well be that my hon. Friends will wish to quote some examples in other parts of the country. One thinks of Yarrow (Shipbuilding) Ltd. and of Austin and Pickersgill Ltd.
My researches show that between 1973 and 1975 in 19 typical takeovers in the City the purchasers had to pay 48 per cent. more for the businesses taken over than the quoted values of the shares at the time. Thus one can say as a generality that on a takeover it is necessary to pay a 50 per cent. increase, or half more, for control of the business being acquired.
We have here, therefore, a hypothetical and basically unfair system which will lead to much argument and delay, and inevitably arbitration. I suggest that the arbitration provisions of the Bill are more important than have been the arbitration provisions in any previous nationalisation measure.
There is the possibility of deductions under Section 39 for disposition of assets, onerous transactions and all sorts of other evil transactions conjured up in the mind of the Government. In this Bill the Government have given greater length than in any previous nationalisation measure to sections aimed at closing any posible loophole that their ingenious minds could foretell. I believe that they will find no such cases of attempts to escape the effects of the Act, because I believe that however much the controllers of the companies contest disapprove of nationalisation, they will not wish to break the law in this way. If any such allegations were made, however, I am sure that this would be another matter to be referred to arbitration under the procedure in the Bill.
Again, under section 21 it is possible for the Government to allege that inter-company debts are to be treated as

though they were securities. The effect of that is that the parent company would lose part of its assets. If there were any intent to bring about such a situation, I am sure that that would be a matter the company would wish to refer to arbitration.
All the way through the Bill we come across instances of the way in which this matter is being handled that will inevitably give rise to a very large number of arbitration cases. There will be much complexity and much delay. Indeed, the Minister of State himself told the Committee that
it is inevitable that, even with the best will in the world, it will be some time before all the settlements are reached…The negotiations will be complex."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9th March 1976; c. 1600.]
The Minister appreciated the situation. It came to light at about that time in the Committee's deliberations that the Government had appointed an eminent firm of chartered accountants to ferret through the books of these 43 companies. I shall not prolong proceedings too long tonight by repeating the very lengthy arguments we had on this subject, because for some reason the Minister of State seemed to wish to make this into a great mystery. It was not possible for us to discover what instructions had been given to this eminent firm of accountants, or what was likely to be the time-scale for the examination.
What is clear, I believe, is that the affairs of all 43 companies to be nationalised are to be cleared by the accountants acting for the Government before there can be a final settlement. I take it that that is so, as the Minister has not corrected me. We do not know how long that will take. Obviously, the company which is the last to be dealt with by this eminent firm will have to suffer a very long delay, indeed. This is a procedure that will add considerably to the delay in the payment of the already far too low compensation.
The shareholders, in all but one shipyard and in all the aircraft companies and all the ship repairing concerns, are parent companies. They will be wishing to continue to trade, and they will be seeking to lay their hands on the compensation so that they can invest it in other productive assets and obtain alternative occupations for the future, as well as providing jobs


for the future in other ways. It is true that they will receive interest from vesting day, but it is not the interest they want: it is the capital. I hardly need remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the way in which the value of the pound is continually declining. They want their money now to reinvest as soon as possible in alternative real assets.
It is, therefore, very difficult indeed for any of these parent companies to plan. I know this from having spoken to the managements of some of the largest of these concerns. There is great uncertainty both as to the amount of compensation they will receive and as to the time-scale in which they will receive it. Certainly they all believe that they will be unfairly treated. The valuations will be on a 1973–74 basis. They could not be paid out before 1977–78. There seems to be little doubt of that. Indeed, if there is much delay in the ferreting through the books and the witch-hunting, it might well be 1979–80 before they are paid out.
The value of the pound has fallen by over one-third since the Government came to power. We know what effect this will have on the purchasing power of the pounds that will be received in compensation. Valued on the 1973–74 basis, the sum will be worth only two thirds of its real value at the time that the nationalisation proposal effectively sterilised their businesses.
We must take into account the fact that when the owners replace the assets taken from them by nationalisation with an alternative business, they will be faced with paying a 50 per cent. mark-up to obtain control—the 50 per cent. mark-up which the Government did not pay and out of which the Government have cheated these people. Faced with inflation—ignoring the tax problems—the owners will be lucky if they can in real terms replace their shipyards and aircraft factories with real new assets worth only a third of what they had before. Yet that is what Government spokesmen describe as fair compensation. I do not believe that it would be regarded as fair in any other Western democracy. If a foreign Government took over the assets of a British company on those terms, the company would be entitled to claim against our Government for compensation for the assets expropriated by the foreigner.
This is the first occasion that a Socialist Government have made an excursion into manufacturing industry. There are wide implications. The Labour Party's policy, emerging through the usual channels of the national executive and the party conference, is to spread State ownership and nationalisation to a vast area of British industry and British institutions. The unfair treatment of compensation in the Bill bodes ill for future compensation terms that may effect more and more people as the march of Socialism advances.
It is all very well for hon. Members thinking of the next election, to say "they are not at this time the policy of the Government". If the Prime Minister was correctly quoted, however, he has argued that they are the long-term aspirations of them all. A party with those longterm aspirations and with the unfair record of this Government on compensation should never be returned to a position where it may impose its will again on this country's industry.
New Clause 5 attempts to ameliorate the problems caused for parent companies by the delay in the payment of compensation. Its effect is to give to the arbitration tribunal power to make an award on account of the final sum.
It is true that under the Bill the Secretary of State already has power to do that. But will the Secretary of State use his power? There can be no guarantee that he will do so. He will constantly receive reminders from the Treasury of the need to save money. We gather from recent developments that there is extreme pressure in that direction just now. There will be no sense of urgency on the part of the Minister to pay out more money under nationalisation.
Even if he is paying out at a poor rate for the assets acquired, it is still money that must be raised. I should have thought that in view of the pressures coming from our overseas creditors and those that will come shortly from the International Monetary Fund, there would be extreme internal pressure from within the Government to hold up the payment of compensation money for as long as possible.
There is a natural fear that the Government will be inclined to feel that the parent company whose subsidiary was


being nationalised would be likely to settle sooner for less, as it would fear that the longer the delay, the less the real value of the pounds it would obtain as a result of continuing inflation.
It would be fairer to all if the arbitration tribunal, as well as the Secretary of State, had the power to provide for payment on account towards compensation. It would not be obliged to use that power. I believe that it would be fair and right for that power to be included.
The Arbitration Act 1950 includes a provision for an arbitrator, in the normal arbitration where that Act applies, to have the power that I seek in the clause. The Government have incorporated some sections of the Arbitration Act 1950 into the Bill, but they took care not to include the section containing this power. My clause seeks to correct that omission.
In Committee the Minister of State said:
I shall look into what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said and see what can be done."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9th March 1976; c. 1621.]
If I remember correctly the Minister said that that might take a little time. I think he said on that occasion that he might introduce a provision on Report. Nothing has been done in the meantime, despite the fact that some little time has elapsed. Despite the fact that more than 200 Government amendments have been submitted to this shabbily drafted, shabby Bill on Report, none of them covers this fair point, to which the Minister did not show himself unsympathetic in Committee.
New Clause 6 provides that the arbitration tribunal should not regard itself as being bound by the value of the parent company of a group. With only one exception the companies being nationalised are the subsidiaries of parent companies with continuing groups. It is possible for a group to contain good parts and bad parts. It is possible for the overall quoted share value of a group as a whole to reflect so much the bad part of the group as to be less than the value of the good part which is to be nationalised. In that case an unfair figure may be arrived at, more unfair even than would normally be arrived at under the provisions of the Bill. New Clause 6 seeks to remedy that defect by providing

that the arbitration tribunal shall not be bound by the value of the parent company's shares in the calculations.
A classic example is Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd. On 1st July 1974 the Secretary of State announced the terms on which Sunderland Shipbuilders was being purchased from the bankrupt Court Line, which was in the hands of the receiver. From time to time I act as receiver and I know that receivers are not in the strongest positions when it comes to the sale of assets. In that case there was not a strong argument for paying an inflated price, and yet the price paid was £16 million.
On the basis of the Bill it would have been possible in that case for the arbitration tribunal to rule that the value of the assets should be taken as nil, because by that time the value of the parent company's shares was most certainly nil. I cannot help reflecting what a pity it is that the basis which the then Secretary of State thought was fair for the nationalisation and acquisition of Sunderland Shipbuilders does not apply to other companies which are being taken into State ownership under the Bill.
I wonder by how many times the ultimate compensation that will be received by Austin and Pickersgill Ltd. would have been increased had the same terms been applied as were applied to the company's neighbours on the other side of the river. Austin and Pickersgill is a much more sophisticated and productive yard than was Sunderland Shipbuilders at that time, yet Austin and Pickersgill will obtain only a fraction of the compensation that was paid to Sunderland Shipbuilders, whose parent company was bust.
I believe that New Clause 6 will help to bring some justice into a very unfair method of compensation as provided in the Bill as it stands.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: I should like to amplify what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) who, unfortunately, has just gone out of the Chamber, said earlier that in Committee we spent most of our time talking about compensation and related provisions. That is rubbish,


as will be seen from the record. Half the clauses in the Bill are concerned with compensation, arbitration and related provisions such as safeguarding. It would not, therefore, have been surprising if we had spoken for half the time on compensation-related matters, which are some of the most important and complex provisions in the Bill.
New Clauses 5 and 6 help to alleviate a grossly unfair position in respect of compensation. They do not go as far as we would like, nor as far as we propose in Committee, but they go some way towards alleviating that grossly unfair position.
It is important to make clear why we believe that the position is so unfair in general terms. It is grossly unfair to the shareholders of the companies concerned. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) earlier tried to make out that Vickers was virtually owned and financed by Lord Robens personally. That is absolute rubbish. The vast majority of the shareholders in Vickers, as in other holding companies affected by the Bill, are institutional shareholders, such as life assurance and pension funds which own the shares through their insurance societies.
It is a matter not of argument but of record that there are more people in this country with life assurance policies and, therefore, with an interest in shares, than there are members of unions affiliated to the TUC. The facts are fully documented in Lord Diamond's Report.
These Government securities, with one exception, will not go to individual shareholders, whether they be institutional investors or individuals. They will for the most part go to the parent companies which bear some of the great names in British industry. Those companies will use the money that is left over—the one-third, as my hon. Friend suggested, and I do not think that he is far out—to reinvest in British industry. I have no doubt that they will use the money better than the Government would use it if they retained it.
The compensation provisions seem to me and my hon. Friends to be based on a ridiculous set of assumptions. That contention is supported by articles in various newspapers which were quoted at length in Committee. The amendments go some

way to correct the compensation provisions but, even so, there will still be an almost Alice-in-Wonderland method of arriving at the value of the unquoted shares.
The first thing that has to be done is to pretend that these shares, virtually all unquoted, are in fact quoted. Then we have to pretend that they were quoted in 1973–74 and wonder what a pretend investor would have paid for the pretend shares on the basis of information which the companies might have disclosed had they been quoted and the dividends they might have paid had they been quoted at that time. But the information which actually was disclosed by these companies in 1973–74 is not necessarily at all the same as would have been disclosed if they had been quoted, and the dividends which were paid to parent companies are again not at all necessarily the same. Indeed, they are certain to differ from the dividends which would have been paid had those companies been quoted at that time.
Therefore, one has to use this pile of guesses and pretence to start arriving at a figure of compensation. Even though one may be making these guesses and doing these calculations today, it will in fact be done in a year or two's time, and one has to speculate what the investor would have thought the performance of an individual company was to be in 1974, 1975 and 1976, and maybe 1977 and 1978, by the time this sum comes to be done. One is not allowed to look at the actual performance of the companies concerned. An amendment to allow this to be done was specifically voted down by the Government. One has to guess what a pretend investor would have thought the performance was to be in those years.
Once one has guessed what the performance might have been, one has to look at the parent companies' own quoted price and to adjust one's pile of guesses in accordance with how one thinks it might be affected by the actual quoted price of the parent companies at that time. This question of the parent companies' quoted price is important and is the subject of New Clause 6. It was specifically mentioned in the Bill—the one factor which is mentioned. The Minister of State or his colleague went to some trouble to


tell us in the discussion on another amendment in Committee that any factor which was specifically mentioned as having been taken into account by the arbitration tribunal would override any others in importance. So this parent companies' quotation is of fundamental, indeed overriding, importance in arriving at the valuation. This, of course, affects the pile of guesses and it is a nonsense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has pointed out.
But even when we have made this set of guesses we have to wait—and they will already have waited for two or three years —until vesting day. We have then to pretend that Government securities were issued at that stage. and there will certainly be arguments, in all probability for a year or two, over this heap of guesses and pretence. At the end, the compensation in the form of Government securities is paid to the parent companies.
After all that, when the Secretary of State has finished and has paid out the money, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury comes with the new tax which he has introduced, in the Finance Bill, to take back a large section of the compensation, subject to a lot of complicated provisions which we discussed in connection with the Finance Bill the other day. My hon. Friend was quite right to point out that the compensation, such as it is, if arrived at on this basis is strictly on the basis of individual shares and small parcels of shares, whereas in fact the Government are buying and the parent companies are selling not small parcels of shares but control of these companies. It is a fact of life that control is more valuable than the sum of the parts and the individual shares which make it up. That fact is recognised by the Government, not only in the case quoted by my hon. Friend but in the case of Felixstowe Docks where the Government paid 60 per cent. over the share price for control—but in this Bill they are paying nothing for it.
This way of proceeding is hopelessly contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Takeover Code. The terms of compensation would be regarded by the Export Credits Guarantee Department as expropriation if they were applied to British assets by a foreign Government. There was considerable discussion of this

matter in Committee, but the Government were unable satisfactorily to argue that the ECGB would not regard the terms as expropriation.
I hope that the Minister will deal with a point left outstanding in the long Committee discussions. The Government declined to say whether they would allow the international arbitration machinery attached to the World Bank to arbitrate on these terms if a foreigner owned shares and used his right to go to the international centre for the settlement of disputes of this kind.
The international centre has the power to arbitrate only if the Government, as the party paying the compensation agree. The Government should say tonight that they will allow the centre to arbitrate if a foreign national wants to go to the panel.
The damage done by the compensation terms and the way in which they have been drawn is not limited to parent companies, individual shareholders of quoted companies or shareholders of parent companies. It extends to all companies threatened by nationalisation. As soon as there is the threat of nationalisation, even from such a distinguished body as the Labour Party Home Policy Committee, the industry concerned is immediately affected with a sort of nationalisation blight. These terms and the shabby way in which they have been prepared increase the blight on any threatened industry. Any company which is threatened must look even more carefully at how it invests in its activities. As a result of the compensation terms imposed in the Bill, that applies as long as the terms remain unaltered, even if the Bill is defeated.
These companies should be valued as. other companies are valued when they are bought and sold by the Government or in the private sector. The amendments do not go all the way to achieving this aim, but they go some way and should commend themselves to the House.

8.45 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) is back in the Chamber. He said earlier that another company on the Clyde shared the view of Bristol Channel Ship.


Repairers Limited on this Bill. Unfortunately, the hon. Member did not mention the reasoning behind this attitude—and that is at the heart of what we are discussing. The reason companies wish to be left out of the Bill is that when they are prosperous and when the workers have job security, no one in the firm willingly wants to make the future uncertain. This is a particularly important factor for the Clyde firm because it has already been absorbed into a large amalgam of shipbuilding companies. It has actually experienced what we are now proposing to do to this company for the second time. The result was devastating on the employees of that company and on its profitability.
The Minister of State knows very well, and I have said repeatedly, that he will regret the day that this company is taken into public ownership through nationalisation, because there will be the same sorry story to tell a few years after the implementation of the Bill if, indeed, it ever gets on to the statute book.
In respect of that company one ought to record the fact that following its re-emergence from the amalgam in 1971, its turnover increased from £12½ million in 1971 to £27 million in 1974. Profits turned round from a f2i million loss in 1970 to a modest pretax profit of £300,000 in 1971 and £7 million in 1974. A particularly important fact, at a time when there are 165,000 unemployed in Scotland, is that the numbers employed rose from 3,500 in 1971 to 4,500 in 1974, and continue to grow.
It seems to me that it is for a very good reason that the company does not want to be drawn within the terms of the Bill. Its performance now, and its performance for the successive years, is the point on which the compensation should be judged. The great tragedy is that the compensation figures proposed are so unfair that it will be quite impossible for the parent company to get sufficient money to reinvest in order to provide the additional jobs which are so badly required.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) made reference to the compensation clauses on the assumption that many of us on the Conservative side of the House were primarily concerned that the shareholders should get back some money. Most certainly we are concerned that those who take the invest-

ment risk—a risk it is, as I know well from my own experience of the shipbuilding industry—should be adequately reimbursed. Unless that compensation is paid they will not be adequately reimbursed and there will not be the job opportunity created which ought to arise from adequate compensation.
In passing, it is interesting to note that out of some 3,000 columns of recorded debate in Committee, the compensation clauses took about 380 columns. That does not seem to me an undue amount when we consider the importance of the subject. Arbitration accounted for a further 300 columns. That does not seem an unduly high proportion, although it is quite right that consideration is spread in other ways.
We have had an interesting comment in respect of the dogma of nationalisation. All those who support the Government think that compensation is simply for the benefit of the shareholders. What they are believed to do with it goodness knows, but it must be remembered that people who invest once tend to do so again. That is a thought that many people are only too happy to overlook at the present time. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, and other hon. Gentlemen opposite, totally failed to relate nationalisation to jobs. But until we relate it to jobs, we do not get to the heart of this whole matter. Some certainly do not begin to understand the degree of opposition which many of us feel about this Bill on the grounds of employment alone.
The hon. Member also referred to the new dimension which would develop when worker participation entered this area. I was reminded—perhaps only a few of us here tonight are old enough to remember this with clarity—of the little notice which went up on every coal pit on nationalisation in 1949:
This pit belongs to the people"—
great day. Wonders were going to happen. I do not see a single notice of that order left standing today. Nor do I see great successes for the job prospects which were then offered in the mining industry. About 23,000 jobs have been lost in that industry. I am therefore much less sanguine than is the hon. Member.

Mr. Burden: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was present when the Prime Minister, referring to the Bill


in answer to a question of mine, said that there would have to be rationalisation after the Government had taken the industry over. Rationalisation undoubtedly means closures or cuts in some areas.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for re-emphasising this point, on which we feel so strongly. There can be little doubt in the mind of anyone who faces reality that there will be redundancies. With the present unemployment rate, this is a tragedy which, above all else, we should seek to avert. When compensation is considered, it must be in terms of reinvestment. The parent company must therefore get sufficient reinvestment to make new jobs.
Two other matters are particularly important in connection with compensation. It is difficult, because we know that he is not a stupid fellow, to make the Minister of State confess that the recent cuts have had an additional and devastating effect on industry, which makes anything. If one introduces what is in fact a payroll tax on industry, one still further reduces the resources with which employment can be created and developed. It is important to add to the difficulties which limited compensation brings the difficulties which will be found in the spring of the coming year when this additional payroll tax has to be found.
The other important matter is the effect on the management of these companies. Successful companies are successful largely because of the leadership and capability of the management. It is true that in many cases management has considerable investment in these companies. it is equally true, I should have thought, that the Government and the new shipbuilding board would wish to use the expertise of that management. This again is something that I am afraid that I have said before in Committee, but if the expertise is required it seems unlikely that it will be willing to continue if the compensation received for its investment—in every sense—is to be as unfair as most of us judge it will be.
The compensation, because of the dates on which it is to be based and the way in which it is to be calculated, is grossly unfair. But added to that is the

long delay emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). The new clauses seek to alleviate the delays and the void which will occur while the compensation is being argued. It would not be appropriate to go into detail on how the compensation will be calculated. However, it is well known by all who served on the Committee and by many throughout industry that a Herculean task has been imposed upon one professional firm which, in the view of many, could not possibly fulfil that task within an acceptable number of years.
First, we have the bad judgment of accepting compensation based on a limited period, the results of which are known to be less good than they became later. We then have the appalling fall in the value of our currency in the intervening period, to which must be added the delay which will be occasioned by the proposed arbitration procedure. There-fort, if we can do anything at this late stage to improve upon a Bill, which I still sincerely hope will not become law, we must support the new clauses. We are seeking to ensure employment where it already exists and to offer some hope of being able to extend that employment. Therefore, I support the new clauses.

Mr. John Evans: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). The right hon. Lady suggested that nationalised industries are to be equated with redundancies and rationalisation. I wonder whether the Opposition will ever understand that that is why Labour Members have constantly argued that the State should take over not only bankrupt, rundown industries in declining regions but profitable sectors of British industry to prove conclusively that, given an even chance, the nationalised industries can be better run and made more efficient and prosperous than industries in the private sector. Until a Government accept that premise, we shall not be in a position to point to the parallel. Unfortunately, we have to work on the assumption that the Government's duty is to take over rundown industries.
The right hon. Lady referred to the rundown in the mining industry. The


overwhelming reason for the rundown of that industry was that the pits ran out of coal. Was the right hon. Lady suggesting that the miners should have been allowed to dig stones instead of coal? There was a savage rundown in many areas, such as that in which I was brought up, not because of nationalisation but because the pits ran out of coal.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have missed the point of my argument because I did not name the firm whose fate I described. Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited on the Clyde is one of the most profitable private enterprise shipyards in the country. That company was brought to near total destruction when it was dragged into a consortium of similar pattern to that into which it will again be dragged through nationalisation.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Evans: I accept the point that the right hon. Lady has made. Perhaps she missed what I said in the last debate. I pointed out that I had worked in the industry since I was 15 years of age and that I knew something about the industry in which I worked.
The major reason why Yarrows has been one of the most prosperous and successful firms in the shipbuilding industry is that it exists almost entirely out of Government orders. On Tyneside, where I worked all my life, we often pointed to Yarrows and other yards and asked why the Tyne yards could not have their fair share of shipbuilding orders, which were always placed in areas of unemployment. I shall not repeat such matters tonight.
This is a classical case of the Tory Party at its best or worst, depending on where one stands politically. Once again the Tories are arguing the case of the privileged shareholders. Once again they are weeping crocodile tears on behalf of these privileged people. Once again they are suggesting that a Labour Government are taking industries without paying the proper compensation.
After giving most of my life to the industry and working with men and women who have given most of their lives to the industry, I believe that it should be confiscated and there not be one penny of compensation. I should

like the Minister, in his reply, to outline to the House every penny that shipbuilding companies in Great Britain have received in the past 25 years in Government grants, regional employment premia, and policies to aid employment. If we put that on the other side of the balance sheet, we end up with their having to pay the State money for the State to take them over. They owe the taxpayers a great deal more than we owe them. That is true of the shipbuilding industry.
It could be argued that the ship repairing industry is in a somewhat different position. Many of the ship repairing firms are tied up with and part of shipbuilding concerns. There are many instances—certainly Swan Hunter, where I worked for many years—where the repairing side is tied hand in glove with the building side. Part of the reason for the prosperity of the repairing side was that it was able to transfer workers into the repairing section as and when necessary, when ships came into the Tyne. Unfortunately, in the past few months this has not happened often enough.
It is essential that the Government give us this balance sheet. It is essential that we find out exactly how much each company has received in the various grants that have been available over the past 25 years. It is no secret that I believe that one of the issues which has devastated the British shipbuilding industry is not the amount of capital investment in the industry but the lack of capital investment in the industry.
In many of the yards in which I worked, we were working with cranes and equipment which were put in during the last war, when they were also put in with Government money to build warships for the Government. Very few yards throughout Britain have had private investment. What little investment there has been has come from the taxpayer. Successive Governments have poured millions of pounds into the industry.
The right hon. Lady referred to the last reorganisation of the industry. When we look at what happened there, in the Geddes Report there was a total, complete and utter condemnation of the management of British shipbuilding. The


Government of the day made it clear—and the industry accepted this—that they would have to amalgamate if they were to survive. Some of us at that time—I was not then a Member of Parliament—were arguing that that would not succeed and that the only hope for the future of the industry was for it to be taken into complete public ownership. After many years have elapsed and hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been poured down the drain, finally we have reached that stage at which we shall take the industry into public ownership.
Turning to the question of rationalisation, given the world order book as it exists today and the rundown situation of British shipyards, the lack of modern equipment, and the lack of the ability to compete on an international plane, undoubtedly there will be redundancies on a large scale. One thing that I expect from the Government, certainly the present Labour Government, is for them to be at least humane in their approach, and far more humane than the attitudes that existed throughout the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries for many years until the comparatively recent past, in the days when we were given 24 hours' notice of the termination of a job and spent perhaps six or seven weeks tramping Tyneside looking for another one, constantly being rejected. The workers in the industry supported the Labour Party in two General Elections in 1974 because they wanted this industry taken into public ownership.
As regards compensation, we must put into the balance sheet the people who have given their lives or their limbs in the industry. Many have been crippled with arthritis and many have been deafened by the noise in the shipbuilding industry. They also have a right to be considered. When I hear Tory Members talking about the rights of shareholders, I must speak on behalf of the workers in the industry. If the Government draw up the balance sheet properly and tell the public exactly how much public money has been poured into the industry, we shall be able to see who owes what to whom.

Mr. Burden: I was extremely interested in the passionate way in which the hon.

Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) spoke. I was also very interested when he said that he had served in many shipyards. It seems rather surprising that a man should serve in many shipyards. I am sure that the House would be interested to know in just how many shipyards he has been employed.

Mr. John Evans: I do not know whether I shall be boring the House, but if I start on Tyneside and work my way through Wearside and Teesside, will that satisfy the hon. Gentleman? Will it satisfy him when I say that in one year, 1958-59, I worked in no fewer than seven shipyards and repair yards? Some of my comrades on Tyneside often worked in 14 or 15 different yards in one year. We were lucky if we got two or three weeks' work at a time. That is how many yards I have worked in.

Mr. Burden: I find it surprising that anyone who has worked in as many as seven shipyards in one year can know very much about any of them.
It surprises me that the Labour Party and the Government say, on the one hand, that we must have a thriving mixed economy, when, on the other hand, hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Newton and many other Labour Members make it perfectly clear that they want nothing of the sort. They want a purely Socialist economy and the complete elimination of capitalism. The Government have created a situation in which, despite their lip service to the need for a thriving mixed economy, they are looking out for something else and are now in the process of nationalising the shipbuilding and aircraft industries.
This threat has been hanging over the industries for a very considerable time. Because of this threat, with all the uncertainties that it has created, there is a full-out effect upon other industries. Particularly is this so when it appears that there is unjust compensation that comes very near confiscation, which Labour Members below the Gangway have suggested should be the Government's action.
One does not have to think very deeply before understanding the effect that this has on a whole range of private industry. Why should industries consider investment at current rates when a Government might come along and take them


over, and then, as in one case—only one of these companies was quoted—on a notional valuation three years old, compensating on that basis? This is confiscation rather than compensation. It is a monstrous injustice.
The best way in which I can illustrate the monstrosity of the injustice is by referring to a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) who asked:
what was the percentage rise in the general level of prices of (a) each nationalised industry and (b) of all nationalised industries together between 31st March 1975 and 31st March 1976.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that the rise in the price of domestic coal was 22 per cent. in that year and that industrial coal rose by 15 per cent. He said that electricity prices in England and Wales rose by 33 per cent., British Gas Corporation prices by 20 per cent., telecommunications by 80 per cent., posts by 22 per cent., British Airways Board prices by 20 per cent., British Rail passenger fares by 48 per cent., freight by 29 per cent., parcels by 27 per cent., British Transport Docks Board uncontrolled charges by 72 per cent. and its controlled charges by 56 per cent., British Waterways Board charges by 27 per cent., and National Bus Company fares by 40 per cent.
The Financial Secretary added:
The retail prices index for goods and services mainly produced by the nationalised industries rose by 33 per cent. between April 1975 and April 1976.
He concluded:
It is not possible to give a single overall figure. The average list prices of BSC's main product groups increased within the range of 0–27 per cent."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 620.]
That illustrates more clearly than anything that I can say that this is confiscation rather than compensation.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I find it remarkable that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) should read out a list of prices relating only to nationalised industries. It was, for instance, noticeable that he did not include land in the price increases that have occurred over the last few years. Millions of pounds more have been made out of land in the last five years than have been made by industry. Millions

have been made by racketeers and property dealers. Everybody knows how property prices have increased, and yet the hon. Member did not include the prices of land and buildings which have risen most. By and large land and buildings are still in the hands of private enterprise.
I have been present when every major nationalisation measure, since the war has been introduced. I have listened to the same heartfelt pleas in behalf of the shareholders by Conservative hon. Members in relation to Bills to nationalise coal, railways, the steel industry, Cable and Wireless. They made the case that they have made tonight on behalf of those who hold shares in the shipbuilding, aircraft and ship repairing industries.

Mr. Burden: These figures affect the value of an industry being taken over. These are the rises in costs in one year —and they are official figures issued by the Labour Government, not my figures.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not disputing the figures. I am merely saying that those increases are nothing like as large as the increases in land prices. Industry cannot function without land. Without that commodity one cannot build a single factory or a shipyard. The hon. Member for Gillingham failed to mention that the largest increase we have seen in postwar years has occurred in land prices and the costs of housing and other buildings.

Mr. Burden: Rubbish.

Mr. Kaufman: The House might like to know that in the period of office of the Conservative Party the price of private houses rose by 119 per cent.

Mr. Fernyhough: I repeat that I have listened to every debate on nationalisation in post-war years and heard all the pleas by Conservatives when seeking compensation in respect of the owners of coal, railways, Cable and Wireless and other industries. However, when the Conservatives were in power between 1951 and 1964 they did nothing to rectify the wrongs which they contended we had committed between 1945 and 1951. They did not take a single step to put right what they called our confiscatory measures. When the Conservative Government sought to deal with Rolls-Royce,


they did not shed many tears for those shareholders. For once they had to put Britain's interests between their own party's selfish interests.
The right hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) drew attention to the situation in shipbuilding and ship repairing. There was a ship repair yard in my constituency which was profitable and which belonged to Vickers. In 1970 we decided to keep it open. But three months afterwards, when the electorate decided to return a Conservative Government, the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) decided to close the yard. We were intent on keeping the Vickers yard open, but the then Tory Government closed it.
The right hon. Lady talks about jobs being lost through nationalisation, but we have experienced job losses as a consequence of the Conservatives not being prepared to use the very Act they introduced—the Industry Act 1972. The ship repair yard in my constituency could have been saved by their legislation, but they let go 750 jobs in my constituency because they would not use the Act.

Mr. John Evans: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that when this repair yard closed, 750 men lost their jobs, but when the yard was at the peak of production about 2,000 men were working in it?

Mr. Fernvhough: I accept that, but there were 750 employed when the Conservatives made their wonderful statement about no help for lame ducks. The lame duck in my constituency was the first to be crushed by their lack of charity and understanding.

Mr. Heseltine: I am not sure where this argument is leading. Would the right hon. Member explain the difference between the repair yard in his constituency and the Greenwells yard, which has just been closed by the nationalised company which owns it?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not saying that there is any difference, but the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East said that nationalisation meant closure. All I am saying is that there have been closures by private enterprise all through my lifetime.
The yard in my constituency was closed not because it was not viable but because Vickers decided to get out of heavy industry. If it was not viable then, Swan Hunter Shipbuilders has found it to be viable since, because when that company took over it made the yard a going concern, and Swan Hunter is not that much more efficient. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite wish to interrupt me, would they do so one at a time? At my age I cannot cope with hon. Members all shouting at once.

Mr. Heseltine: What exactly is the right hon. Member complaining about? Is he complaining that his yard was closed by private enterprise Vickers, or is he complaining because it was rescued by private enterprise Swan Hunter?

Mr. Fernyhough: It was closed by a private enterprise firm which would not have existed without Government orders. Vickers at Barrow lives on Government orders. If it lost Government orders for naval vessels, Vickers would collapse.

Mr. Burden: Would not the right hon. Member agree that the only way shipyards can be kept open is by giving them ships to build or repair? If yards are not competitive in the world and cannot build ships in competition with other countries, the only alternative is for the Government to order ships. Are the Government going to order shins? If so, what are they going to do with them?

Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Member wants to know what the Government are going to do, he will have to wait until they announce their plans. They will do so when they get their legislation through. Opposition Members would complain if the Government took powers unto themselves which the House had not yet given them. When the Government get this Bill through, they will take steps to make the industry much more efficient and viable.
One of the enterprises to which I can point is Thomas Cook Ltd. That was a thriving industry while it was nationalised. It had not made a loss since it was taken into public ownership in 1947. But what happened under private enterprise? The company's record under private enterprise does not compare with its record when it was nationalised. Another example, is the


Carlisle brewery and its pubs. That is a fine example of private enterprise expanding and sustaining jobs!
Our debate has witnessed the usual crocodile tears by the Conservatives on behalf of shareholders, the tears we have seen over every nationalisation Bill since I came into this House, and that is a long time ago. The Conservatives could put to the men in the yards on the Tyne, the Clyde and the Mersey the arguments they have put to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, but they would not get the same answer. I am satisfied that the overwhelming majority of labourers and craftsmen, technicians and designers in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries are anxious for those industries to be taken into public ownership. Many of the top management would be dismayed if the Bill did not get through.
The Conservatives are making their usual last stand on behalf of the shareholders. It is a stand similar to those that they have made on every major nationalisation Bill over the last 30 years. It will not stop the Bill going through. If they should ever happen to get back to power, which God forbid, they will no more denationalise these industries or turn the clock back than they have with regard to the railways, Cable and Wireless, the coal mines and many other industries, and they know it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will immediately deny the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Ferneyhough) that the Conservatives will retain these industries in public ownership. I hope that he will say that we shall want to review the whole situation in the light of circumstances then prevailing. There can be no suggestion that the Conservatives will not denationalise. I hope that we shall and that we shall do a lot of it in the interests of the country.
The right hon. Member for Jarrow confused the issue by bringing in the question of the State pubs. They are not normal pubs. They are on the Scottish border and they are subject to a different situation from other pubs. The pubs in England are open on Sundays, but Scottish pubs are not. Because the State pubs in Carlisle are on the border, Scotsmen who are ill judged enough to want to

drink on a Sunday have to cross over. The accounts of these pubs are distorted because of the peculiar circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to stay in the House later this evening he will see whether the present happy situation in Scotland remains.
The clause does not relate directly to compensation. It simply says that if compensation is to be paid, the owners of the yards should have a reasonable guarantee that they will get some of their money within a reasonable period of time. The points advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) are relevant in this regard. The Minister commented on the points raised by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) concerning State money put into the shipbuilding industry. If the Minister is honest he will try to differentiate betweeen the money going to State-owned of partially State-owned firms and the money going to the private sector of the industry. If he does that it will be clear to the hon. Member for Newton that by far the greater part of the State cash which has gone into the shipyards by way of loans or grants has been paid to the nationalised side of the industry.
The hon. Member for Newton, with his long experience of working in shipyards, seemed to believe that nationalisation would improve matters. I am sure he believes it. However, I think he will accept that there are some Opposition Members who, like myself, have experience of working in shipyards. We take the view that the Bill will make things worse.
9.30 p.m.
Surely there is an ideal situation in the shipbuilding industry to test these matters. That is because half the industry is nationalised and half is not. Surely it would be sensible to let the two fight it out to see which part of the industry emerged the stronger and more viable. On the Clyde the exercise has been carried out to some small degree. The integration of Yarrows was tried within a nationalised firm and it almost went bust.

Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the comparisons he is drawing with firms such as Vickers and Yarrows are not fair? Vosper has subsisted for years as it has been able to build Government warships and Ministry


of Defence ships. The other yards have had great difficulty in getting such orders. Any fool in the industry knows that if a yard has contracts from Governments to build warships, supply ships or ammunition ships, it is on to a good thing as they are contracts that will make a fat profit. However the yards that have to try to get orders elsewhere, especially on fixed contract prices, run into difficulties. Many of those difficulties are due to rank bad management.

Mr. Taylor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that to have Government work is no guarantee of making a profit. Let us remember the experience of the Fairfield yard. That company built many naval vessels, but although it had those contracts it not only failed to make money but went bust. It is nonsense to say that under the present tight arrangements for negotiating Government contracts there is a guarantee of profit.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is being unfair to Vosper. The majority of its work does not stern from Government contracts. As he will be aware if he has studied the accounts and looked at the order book, the majority of its work comes from obtaining naval orders from foreign countries. That means that it has to engage in competition with other companies. That is not an easy market.

Mr. John Evans: I did not refer to the British Government. I said "Governments". I was careful about that because the point was raised with me in a private debate.

Mr. Taylor: If poor old Vosper has to look for work from foreign Governments in competition with others and with restrictions placed on it by this Government, which limit the countries for which it can build ships and which leave us out of a large market, and if it has to do so at a time when there is a shortage of shipbuilding orders, it shows that it must be a pretty efficient undertaking if it can survive in that climate.
We could argue about these matters until the cows come home. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman thinks that matters will improve with nationalisation, whereas I think the situation will become worse. As I have said, we have

a grand opportunity of testing that to a conclusion. That could be done if we had fair competition between the private sector and the State-owned sector. I hope that the Minister will make it clear just how much State cash has gone to the nationalised sector by comparison with the private sector.
We are talking about the need to have a fair settlement of compensation as speedily as possible. The Minister of State may well point out that under Clause 36(6) he can, if he so desires, agree to the making of interim payments of compensation. That depends on the Minister. I appreciate that he considers himself to be an important member of the Government, but he is subject to Treasury control in these matters. In present circumstances, in which the Chancellor is having to borrow £9,000 million and to issue Government stock, how is he to respond to the Minister if he knocks at the Treasury door saying "Please, may I issue £100 million of Government stock tomorrow to those who own the shipyards as I want to make an interim payment to them?" How can that happen when in my constituency we cannot even get borrowing consent for the conversion of some houses for a social work department for the largest housing scheme in Europe because the Government cannot allow the issuing of any more money? It is clear that it will not be easy to make an interim payment. The Minister might find that to be difficult.
There is no guarantee that interim payments will be made at a reasonable time. That would not be so had if the compensation were excessive, but I think it is generally accepted by all reasonable people that while compensation in respect of some firms is not wholly unreasonable, in the case of other firms it is sharp-dealing robbery, nothing more and nothing less.
When we look at some of the firms and their balance sheets, it is clear that the Government are, in some cases, buying a large mountain of cash, which is almost equivalent to the full compensation price. We have also to look at the fact that the positions of some of the firms have deteriorated to some degree since it was first decided to nationalise. Much of that deterioration is due to the threat of nationalisation, which has made


it difficult for them to plan and to borrow, and almost imposible to invest.
The Minister should not discount the fact that, in the repeated remarks he has made throughout our Committee stage and since then, he has brought about a position in which a number of firms are on the point of collapse. He was always very careful never to specify them. He once went as far as to make the monstrous suggestion that a firm on Clydeside was in danger of collapse. He must know that this is not the case, but general smears of this kind about the state of the industry, as he must know, do a great deal of damage to firms which are trying to provide security of employment.
In all these circumstances, the least we are entitled to instead is that the Government will make some arrangement that some of this money will be paid at a reasonable time. There is no guarantee at present. All we have is the suggestion, in Clause 36(6), that the Minister may agree to an interim payment if he so desires. That is not good enough. In the new clause we suggest that the arbitration tribunal shall have the power to make an interim payment in respect of compensation. If we do not have this it may be several years before these matters can be sorted out.
In the acute state of the Government's finances and in the acute state of the economy, with so much unemployment and so much more about to be created, we are certainly not in a position where there is any incentive for the Government to pay out money quickly.
There has been yet another indication of the crisis only today. We have seen on the tape that there is a plan to get rid of 65,000 civil servants. This is a drastic step for a Government to take when we have 165,000 unemployed in Scotland alone—the highest figure post-War. In these circumstances, will it be easy for any Minister, even if he wants to do so, to say that he will make an interim payment?
Unlike the hon. Member for Newton, I believe that it is utter madness to spend this money on nationalisation at a time when we need the money so desperately in other fields. On the other hand, if there is to be nationalisation, we must have some fair play for those in the indus-

try, particularly bearing in mind that the money will not go to greedy capitalists or to individual shareholders. I hope that the hon. Member for Newton appreciates that. In the vast majority of cases the money will go to foreign firms who, like Yarrows, want to invest the money in something else. The money is not for the purposes of bingo halls or casinos or holidays in the Bahamas. It is for the creation of more jobs.
All our experience is that the people who have owned the shipyards have, in their other spheres of activity, had considerable success in creating jobs and in achieving growth. That is the case with Yarrows, which has expanded its labour force and increased its profits, thereby making considerable contributions to the Treasury in many ways.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: When I listened to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), and heard the right hon. Member for Jarrow saying that he had listened to a succession of nationalisation debates, and what he described as the stereotyped Conservative defence against nationalisation, I sought vainly for an analogy that would demonstrate to the House how I reacted.
The only effective analogy I could think of was that of a man who is tempted by a very low price to buy a very old boat, and does so without taking the elementary precaution of getting a survey. He acquires this wonderful new possession, which he regards as a great bargain. It looks fine until he starts to scrape off a few bits of old paint.
When he has scraped off the nrst few bits, he finds that the surface wood looks rotten. He then takes off some of the surface wood, thinking that he may only have to take off a little of it. He finds that he has to take off the whole of the surface wood. He gets a little further and finds that some of the frames are rotten. He thinks that he should take out some of the frames before he puts back the surface wood and starts to paint. After he has taken out parts of the frame, he finds that there is rot in the keel as well. That is the way in which I react to the economic nonsense spoken time and again when the subject of nationalisation comes before the House.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that anyone who sells a boat of that kind should be prosecuted under the false descriptions legislation?

Mr. Lloyd: There is an answer to that—caveat emptor. Another answer is that the buyer should first commission a survey.
I admit that there has been insufficient investment in the shipbuilding industry. Let me illustrate why.
I should perhaps declare an interest. I am an adviser to a major British liner company. However, I have no interest in shipbuilding as this company builds few ships at the moment. Fifteen years ago we built a large number. We owned and controlled a shipyard on the Clyde.
At that time a policy decision had to be taken whether we should invest in the shipyard and restructure it, or do something else. At that time I visited virtually every shipyard in the Western world, including those in the United States, Scandinavia and Japan. I came back and made a report—and it was valid. I reported that the most modern shipbuilding techniques in the world were to be found in Sweden, especially in Kockums and Go Taverkeno. I proposed that the techniques employed in Kockums should be brought to the Clyde.
That proposal was seriously examined. In the early 1960s it would have cost about £8 million or £9 million to bring our shipyard up to a state where it had the slightest hope of competing not with Japan—at that stage the Japanese industry was a small cloud on the horizon—but with the best techniques in Britain. That proposal was turned down. Why? It was turned down because there was no possibility of a reasonably effective rate of return on the investment.
Every investor in this country—shipowner, investment institution, insurance company or pension fund—must go to those to whom he is answerable for the investment funds and say "Amongst the alternative competing investments available to me is a shipyard. If I invest £9 million in that undertaking, we shall receive a return of X per cent." In this case the X per cent. was distinctly less favourable than that from many other forms of investment.
That is the pattern of investment in the Western world. Hon. Gentlemen's pension fund managers may say "We have not invested in the top opportunities that are available to us. We put all the money into ailing shipyards from which the return is 3 per cent." Would hon. Gentlemen be pleased if that occurred?

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman said that such an investment would not bring in a good return. Does he therefore say that there should be no shipbuilding capacity in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: No. The incident to which I referred took place a long time ago.
The answer is simple. When the sums were done, the net return on the capital invested would have been far inferior to what might have been obtained in other ways. If that is true of that shipyard, with a proper rational analysis based on the comparison of modern techniques all over the world, I suggest it is true of most of the remainder in this country, if not all.
If there has been insufficient investment it is because the general climate of private investment in this country since the Second World War has been so devastatingly hostile that people responsible for investment have become more and more discouraged. Therefore the private sector has deteriorated.

Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that from 1945 to about 1951 the shipbuilding industry in this country had a free run in the world? The world queued up for ships built in Britain because the shipbuilding capacity of the rest of the world had been almost destroyed. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the years from 1952, when the Conservatives were in power, were the years when no investment took place in the British shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Lloyd: In the years immediately after the war most foreign shipyards had been destroyed and, therefore, British shipbuilding had a free run. From 1952 onwards there was considerable investment, but not enough, for the reasons I have given.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: For those who served on the Standing Committee this has been quite like old times. We had the great pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) deploying his expertise in accountancy rather more in sorrow than in anger, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) more in anger than in sorrow.
We have had once again the always delightful opportunity to listen to the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). One slight and to me rather depressing and hurtful variant is that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), with whom I got on so well in Committee, seems to have turned a little sour on me, but I shall have to live with that.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), in winding up the previous debate, said words which will apply to a great deal of what we say in our debates tonight and during the next two days—"we have covered that in Committee". Yes, we covered in Committee almost everything that has been said by Opposition Members.
On the other hand, certain speeches made by my hon. Friends, including in particular the powerful and moving speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), are major additional contributions to our debates and give me oportunities which I shall take to give additional information to the House which I am sure will be of use to it in considering the new clauses.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall not pursue yet again the ECGD hare which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South chased in Committee. I had the feeling by the time we had done with it that it was satisfactorily casseroled. There is little more to be said about that runner as it has been proved to the hilt that it had no basis.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East is not here at the moment because sometimes in Committee I had to disagree with her and, because of the very great respect and regard in which we all hold her, that was

difficult and disagreeable for me. That being so, I am glad that it will not be necessary for me to say various hurtful things to her about the basis of the existence of Yarrow, because I know that Yarrow is dear to her heart.
The right hon. Lady referred to the "devastating" cuts which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with some comments that have been made about those cuts, and my right hon. Friend said that he was not at all happy at having to make that statement. But those cuts are as nothing compared with what right hon. persons on the Opposition Front Bench have asked for. As soon as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat down, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said that they were too little and too late.
The right hon. Lady, with whom I have a great deal of sympathy, unique as she is in so many agreeable ways, is also unique in opposing the cuts while the rest of her party demand far more cuts, deeper cuts and cuts that will cause far more unemployment. So, while there is very little that we shall not take from her because of our regard for her, we shall certainly take none of it from other hon. Gentlemen.
In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Tynemouth, in the highly agreeable way in which he always spoke in Committee, seemed to imply—I am sure inadvertently—that I had given some commitment on this matter when it was debated in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater on this very matter I said:
I undertake to consider the matter. I shall certainly do that. The way in which I respond, and whether it is appropriate to come back, will depend upon the consideration. But I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that I shall consider seriously what he said.
Those were my words.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth who spoke to that particular subject in Standing Committe, did not find what I said satisfactory. He said, referring to me:
If the hon. Gentleman had said that he would think again and come back with an amendment giving a guarantee, I should have been happy to withdraw my amendment. But


he has not suggested that, so I shall press the matter."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9th March 1976; c. 1626.]
The hon. Gentleman forced a Division on this because I had not given a commitment, and we defeated him by 13 votes to nine.
That being so, as I always respect what the hon. Gentleman has to say, I hope that he will not imply that because the Government have not tabled an amendment, I have not followed up that discussion and have not. in some way, followed through a commitment which I never gave.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton, in an extremely moving and impressive speech dealt with, among other things, Opposition claims that public ownership was not a profitable sphere of activity. I really should have thought that after the announcements which have been made during the past few days of large profits being declared by one publicly owned industry after another the canard of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that nationalisation cannot be profitable has finally joined the ECGD hare in the casserole; because of course we are proving, as we always said we would, that public ownership can be profitable.
The British Steel Corporation was referred to in an extremely agreeable contribution from the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), an old and happy sparring partner of mine. This comes back to the question of Government control of prices, to which I shall refer in dealing with the speech of the hon. Gentleman. But, of course, if we are dealing with steel and the reason why steel has lost money, the reason for that, in addition to the world recession, is the absolutely crippling price control imposed upon the corporation by the Conservative Party, from which it was released through the large price increases which Opposition Members now deplore when we became subject to the rules of the European Steel and Coal Community, against which many of my hon. and right hon. Friends voted when hon. and right hon. Members opposite took us into the European Common Market at the beginning of 1973.
So it is the Conservative Party, with the exception of the hon. Member for Cathcart, who freed the British Steel

Corporation from the price control which was destroying it under the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath); and the corporation is now being allowed to raise its prices so as to be able to compete. That is one of the reasons why after a very serious deficit in the current year, the British Steel Corporation hopes to move into equilibrium in the next financial year and into profitability in the following financial year.

Mr. Trotter: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to column 3121 of the Official Report of a later meeting of the Standing Committee, covering the statement that we made?

Mr. Kaufman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton asked an extremely pertinent question and was buttressed by the hon. Member for Cathcart. My hon. Friend asked about Government aid to the shipbuilding industry over a period of years and the hon. Member for Cathcart asked whether we could break up that figure between the public and private sectors.
I have not had as much time as I should have liked to obtain for my hon. Friend the information in the form in which he sought it, but he may be satisfied with the information that I gave the House on Second Reading. It is for a finite past period and is as valid now as when I gave it. I said:
It is the same with the shipbuilding industry. In the past 10 years it has received £299 million in Government loans, grants and equity capital. That does not include investment grants, development grants and regional employment premium. There is so much of that under so many headings, that it is impossible to add it all up."—[Official Report, 2nd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1575.]
For the reasons that I gave on Second Reading and the inability to extract all the information because of the many headings involved, I cannot go across the whole field, but the hon. Member for Cathcart and his hon. Friends will be satisfied if I quote as a very good example, with which they cannot disagree as they were responsible for it, the aid given under the Conservative Government's Industry Act 1972.
This is a very good Act that we have been able to use to great advantage. Under Section 11 a total of £42 million


was paid out in construction grants to the shipbuilding industry up to 1975–76, with nothing asked in return. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart is an enthusiast for the 1972 Act. It will be useful to him and for the benefit of the House if I provide the relevant information in reply to his good and fair question
Of the £42 million in construction grants paid out under the 1972 Act, which was passed with the minimum of opposition from the Conservative Party and none from my party, 34 million has gone to privately owned companies. I have not brought my English-made electronic calculator, but I reckon that is about 80 per cent. of the total.
Of those grants paid out under the Act introduced by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and the Government of which the hon. Member for Cathcart was a member, about 80 per cent. went to private enterprise and 20 per cent. to public enterprise.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will not the Minister agree that construction grants, like investment grants, were sums to which every shipbuilder was entitled for every ship built and that therefore the more ships that were built, the larger the amount of grant received? Did not the hon. Member for Newham (Mr. Evans) ask not about construction grants but about Government grants and loans?

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Licensing (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham.]

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would not the Minister agree that the amount of money that has been given to the State-owned yards, plus Harland and Wolff, in discretionary grants during that 10-year period came to over £170

million, whereas the private sector got a total of £26 million? Would not the Minister agree that this shows that the nationalised sector has by far received the lion's share—about 80 per cent.—of the discretionary loans and grants available?

Mr. Kaufman: I apologise to the hon. Member for Cathcart. I was under the obviously erroneous impression that he was going to divide the House at 10 o'clock and that is why I made those remarks.
We must take into account that Harland and Wolff only recently became part of the public sector under the hon. Gentleman's own Government's legislation, and under that relentlessly nationalising Government of 1970 to 1974 to whom the hon. Gentleman gave his support.

Mr. John Evans: Would my hon. Friend accept that, no matter which set of figures one takes, the British taxpayer has bought the shipbuilding industry three times over?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is extremely eloquent on this subject and, of course, I accept the general drift of what he says.
The hon. Member for Gillingham seemed to imply that nationalisation was a failure—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kaufman: I am so glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is back in the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Gillingham seemed to imply that the nationalised industries were unsuccessful because in the period that he quoted their prices had risen higher than prices had risen as a whole. He knows very well that nationalised industry prices rose faster during that period because, under the counter-inflation legislation of his own Government, those prices were held down artificially. That was one of the reasons why all of those nationalised industries went into deficit.
Another reason why their prices have gone up above average is that we are returning to realistic pricing for publicly owned industries. We are doing so at the


behest of right hon. and hon. Members opposite who, during the debates on the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Act, earlier in this Parliament, insisted that we do so. We are, therefore, carrying this out with all-party support except, of course, that Conservative hon. Members themselves will not accept what they are asking us to do when they can make capital out of it.

Mr. Burden: It would seem that I am not the only person who thinks that the nationalised industries are not a great boon and blessing to the country. I have found very few members of the general public who are overwhelmed with joy by them.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman must take his opinions where he finds them. I do not know whether others agree with him.
For example, one particular nationalised industry, which is one of the oldest in the country and which was referred to in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, namely Cable and Wireless, has been nationalised for 30 years, and it is one of the most outstanding examples of profitability and efficiency in this country. It has just been most fulsomely complimented by a Select Committee of this House on its operations. I had a most happy opportunity of visiting Cable and Wireless myself last week. It is an absolutely excellent concern and a credit to public ownership.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and my hon. Friend the Member for Newton said that Conservative Members were weeping crocodile tears over shareholders. I assure my hon. Friends that they are not crocodile tears: they are real tears. They are the only tears that Tory Members shed. They do not shed tears about the workers but they are ready to devote—[Horn. MEMBERS: "What about the unemployed?"] But the Tories want far more unemployed. They are demanding immense public expenditure cuts which will produce hundreds of thousands more unemployed. They voted against what the Government did to save Alfred Herbert, British Leyland, Chrysler and all the other companies, votes which would have created hundreds of thousands more unemployed. They cannot have it both ways.
The hon. Member for Cathcart issued a challenge to the Government. In effect he said "Do not persist with the Bill. We have a private sector and a public sector in shipbuilding. Let them fight it out in fair competition." That might be a good idea if we agreed what fair competition meant. Do we transfer all the warship orders from private companies to public companies? Will that achieve fair competition?
When the hon. Member says that I have made damaging remarks about the shipbuilding industry by saying that certain companies are on the verge of disaster he should know that as I have gone around the country—"rushed" around the country, as the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has called it—visiting shipyards, wherever I have gone, I have been grabbed hold of by workers and management alike[Interruption.]—No, they do not say that. They say, "Give us a Type 42 destroyer." That is what they want from the Government at Cammel Laird and wherever else I go—a Type 42 destroyer. As many of my hon. Friends will know, one reason that Swan Hunter is not in a parlous state right now is that we gave it a Type 42 destroyer and a through-deck cruiser as well. Without that work, private enterprise merchant ship building would be in a very bad position.
The hon. Member for Cathcart talks about the danger of talking down the Clyde, but Scottish Members know very well what the position would be in one shipbuilder on the Clyde today if the Government had not intervened.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Which one?

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Member wants the name, he should approach the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and ask him. The Scottish National Party knows very well that this British Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—this Labour Government saved that shipyard. Yes, this British Labour Government as distinct from the small-minded, anti-British Tory Party, which believes only in Britain and British industry provided that it is privately owned and publicly funded—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: Yes—it is the hon. Member's time.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister cannot go on making these damaging remarks. He has said again tonight that one Clyde shipbuilding firm faces serious problems. I have spoken to them all and none of them, apart from the nationalised Govan Shipbuilders, appears to be having acute problems. Let him name the firm he has in mind so that we can save the others from his sneering attacks.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall not do what the hon. Gentleman does—namely, bring to the fore the problems of any particular company by naming it. The hon. Gentleman is prepared to smear the company that the Tory Government nationalised and saved by nationalising it. If he is getting that kind of information, he is not getting the information that we are getting. Every time Scottish Tory Members speak down this Bill, they are speaking down jobs in Scotland. That is why the Scottish TUC has issued statements supporting the Bill and demanding its passage through the House.
After those few preliminary remarks, I should like to turn to the new clauses and the amendments. As I said, they were debated at length in Committee and the Comimttee came to a conclusion on them. I made clear in Committee that the Government intend to make payments on account as large and as quickly as possible consistent with the uncertainties surrounding the negotiations.
As has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, of the 43 companies named in the Bill 42 are unquoted. In all those cases compensation will be determined under the provisions of Clause 38 by negotiation with recourse to arbitration. We intend to complete these negotiations as quickly as possible, but it is inevitable, as I said in Committee—I repeat the words quoted by the hon. Member for Tynemouth at the beginning of the debate—with the best will in the world that it will be some time before all the settlements are reached.
We recognise that shareholders could feel aggrieved if they have a long wait before they receive their compensation, even though, as has not been pointed out by the Opposition, interest on the stock will accrue from vesting date. Therefore, we feel it right to make provision in the

Bill for the Secretary of State to make payments on account on compensation stock.
I assure the House that if the provision is to be of any real value, payments on account should be not only substantial, but made at the earliest possible opportunity. A small payment on account only shortly before the final settlement would be of little benefit to shareholders.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth has acknowledged that the negotiations will be complex. It will be necessary to settle the base value for compensation and to establish, on the basis of a detailed investigation of the companies' records, whether there are any inter-company debts to be treated as securities under Clause 21 and whether there are any appropriate deductions to be made under Clause 39.
We intend to make payments on account within six months of vesting day, but the complications of the negotiations may be such that in some cases it might not be possible to reach a sufficiently definitive view in that time scale. New Clause 5 and Amendment No. 230 would reduce the flexibility of the position and could act against the interests of the shareholders where the negotiations are particularly complicated.
Clearly, we wish to avoid making either interim payments or payments on account which might, in the light of further negotiations, have to be reclaimed. That would be an unfortunate situation. However, I assure the House that Clause 36 will be operated in the best interests of the shareholders. It will be used to the fullest extent consistent with the progress of negotiations. That being so, I hope that the Opposition will not persist in either New Clause 5 or Amendment No. 230.
10.15 p.m.
There was a considerable discussion in Committee on the meaning of Clause 38(5), to which both New Clause 6 and Amendment No. 294 relate. Clause 38(5) provides that where a vesting company represents a substantial proportion of a quoted parent, the share quotation of that parent should be one of the relevant factors. However, I must emphasise that it will be only one of the relevant factors. The basic requirement on the tribunal is to take account of all relevant factors in


determining the notional share quotation of an unlisted company. The inclusion of Clause 38(5) ensures that the quote of a parent is not excluded from the considerations when it is strictly relevant.
The application of Clause 38(5) is strictly limited. It applies only where an acquire company represents a substantial part of a quoted group. [Interruption.]
Hon. Members seem to imagine that I ought to conclude fairly soon. I have given way a good deal.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, because the annoyance of his hon. Friends would turn on him and he would not like that at all.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I spoke on the Northern Ireland Appropriation Order on Friday and I raised the question of Harland and Wolff. At that time, in his reply the Minister said,
There will be an opportunity to discuss the future of the firm on amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill next week. That would be a good time to debate this subject.
Further in his reply he said,
Either the Secretary of State or I will reply to the debate on the Harland and Wolff amendments if present business arrangements are maintained."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2416.]
Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be possible to debate those amendments, in view of the very serious situation facing Harland and Wolff, and as the Secretary of State is sitting on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that I can say is that we shall debate matters as we come to them. I can say nothing more.

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As Northern Ireland has the highest unemployment of any region of the United Kingdom, are not the amendments in relation to Harland and Wolff of crucial importance and do they not deserve to be taken rather than the speech to which we are now about to listen?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt about the importance of the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is beyond my power to control the way that events go.

Mr. Kaufman: The fact is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in attendance specifically to discuss this matter, but Opposition Members have made a large number of speeches on this grout) of amendments and I am doing my best to reply to the amendments. If hon. Members do not believe that their amendments should receive a reply, I cannot understand why so many of them made speeches on the subject. I have only a little further to go. Provided I am not interrupted I can get it over with fairly quickly. However, I think that it is necessary for the House that I reply to the speeches of Opposition Members.
What I have said is that Clause 38(5) will apply only where the activities of the acquired company are clearly a major factor in determining the quotation of the parent. It is not our intention to apply Clause 38(5) where the activities of the acquired company are less than major in determining the share price of the parent.
Secondly, it is clearly stated in Clause 38(5) that the provisions of that subsection define only one of the relevant factors. This has a direct bearing on the new clause. It is not provided that Clause 38(5) should be the overriding factor. Any other factor relevant to the valuation of an acquired company will also be taken into account. The significance of Clause 38(5) in any particular case—

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question, That the clause be read a Second time, put accordingly and negatived.

New Clause 6

VALUE OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANY

'An Arbitration Tribunal in arriving at the value of any security of a company shall not be required to restrict that value only by


reason of the Stock Exchange quotation of its parent company'.—[Mr. Trotter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Qustion put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 303.

[For Division List No. 284 see col. 605]

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

HEADQUARTERS OF BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS

'The headquarters of British Shipbuilders shall be located in the County of Tyne and Wear'.—[Mr. Trotter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Trotter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is quite extraordinary that after all this time we have had no Government indication about the location of the headquarters of British Shipbuilders. I hope that it will be located in Tyne and Wear because this is the heart of the shipbuilding and repairing industry. It is the logical place for the headquarters. It employs three times as many people in the shipbuilding and repairing industry as Merseyside, and 50 per cent. more than Clydeside. It is the home of the British Ship Research Association, and the university there has the largest and finest naval architecture department, and the only marine engineering department. Tyne and Wear is also the headquarters of the Boilermakers' Union.

Mr. Willey: I congratulate the hon. Member on taking this opportunity to raise the issue of the headquarters, which is crucial to the North-East. I had intended to do so by way of an amendment later, and I am delighter that he has aired this matter in the House.
There is not the slightest doubt that on merit the headquarters should go to the North-East, either Newcastle or Sunderland. The area has five times as many shipyard workers as Merseyside. The area has far more unemployment and far less office employment than Merseyside. It is time therefore that we had fair shares.
The Merseysiders have been very slick in their representations on this matter, but shipbuilding has been concentrated on the North-East coast. We have the university with its naval architecture faculty. Research is concentrated in the North-East. On the Wear there are undoubtedly the best yards in Britain, owned by Austin Pickersgill and Sunderland Shipbuilders.
I am told that this will be a political decision and that it will not depend upon the personal convenience of the members of the organising committee. If it is to be a political decision, let it be recognised once and for all that the North-East coast is sick and tired of being pushed around. We have the strongest Labour area in Britain and that should be recognised. Let us have a political decision for a change. The North-East coast can offer all the facilities. Government money has been put in to improve the roads. We have the accessibility and, more important than anything else, we have the shipyards.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Willey: No, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the headquarters will go to an assisted area. That is one of our main concerns. The claim of the North-East coast is predominant, and we expect that to be recognised very shortly.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: With such scenes of disunity and civil war raging in England it would be dangerous for the Government to establish the headquarters in any part of it. If the headquarters were to go to Merseyside, the North-East would be justifiably annoyed. If it went to the North-East, Merseyside would feel equally aggrieved. In those circumstances neutral territory such as Scotland would be a far better choice. Representations have been made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that it should go to the North-East. Most of the shipbuilding areas could establish a claim for the headquarters.
If what the Government have said is true, the headquarters will be a small body of about 100 people. Such bodies tend to grow, however, so that although we are talking now of a tiny bone, in the course of time there may be a lot more meat, and especially fat, than now seems likely. There are good reasons why Scotland should be chosen for the headquarters. The first is that Scotland contains a substantial proportion of the shipbuilding industry. It is an area which has been prominent in shipbuilding for many years.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North claimed that his area was a Labour stronghold. But if the Government discriminate against Scotland another of their major strongholds will be lost. They would do well, therefore, to try to protect what they have there at present.
There are two other reasons. Promises were made about the steel corporation headquarters that were not fulfilled. We were given brass-plaque type headquarters with no authority. The Government should make up for the failure of the past. Secondly—the Secretary of State will understand this—certain promises were made about the job establishment of the British National Oil Corporation in Glasgow. It was promised that there would he 800 jobs established at the headquarters, but at present there are few people if any at Glasgow and about 53 established in London. The postal address—it is no more than that—of the BNOC is in Glasgow. The only thing that is Scottish about the London headquarters is the name, which is Stornoway House. Even if the Government go ahead and establish the headquarters of the BNOC in Glasgow, there will not be 800 jobs but 200.
The Government will have to make up for the promises they made in the past that they have failed to fulfil. There is a jobs crisis in Scotland and I suggest to the Government that if they do not place the headquarters in Scotland it will be held against them by many of their supporters.

Mr. Kaufman: I think it will assist the House if I make the position clear. The Government have repeatedly said that the headquarters of British shipbuilders will be located in an assisted area with a tradition of shipbuilding. No decision has yet been taken. The views of the organising committees have been sought. The case for the main shipbuilding regions is being examined carefully before a decision is reached. Representatives from all the areas have been seen. I have seen them myself. There have been strong representations in favour of a location in Scotland, in the North-East and in the North-West. My right hon. Friend will announce a decision as soon as it is reached, but I hope that the House will not decide to pre-empt it in the Bill.
It would not be of any assistance to prolong the debate further as other hon. Members wish to discuss other subjects. The cases for all the areas are being carefully considered by the Government.

Mr. Loyden: I do not want to enter into the parochial arguments that have been presented as I know that the Government will take fully into account all the arguments that have been presented. It is only fair to say that many of the representations from the Opposition Benches have been made by those who have viciously opposed the establishment of nationalised shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. The claims that they have made to establish the headquarters in their constituencies smack of humbug.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) approached the Department about the siting of the headquarters on Merseyside. When advised by the Secretary of State that that would depend upon the Bill being enacted, he wanted to know what the location of the headquarters had to do with the Bill. It is evident that the case made by the Opposition must be examined in that light.

Mr. Trotter: In view of the urgency of the other business, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

DUTY OF BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS TO CONSULT, ETC., WITH NORTHERN IRELAND STATE-CONTROLLED SHIPBUILDERS

'In carrying out their functions British Shipbuilders shall have full regard to the need to consult with, and wherever possible co-ordinate their activities with those of, any body corporate in Northern Ireland whose equity share capital is held by or on behalf of the Crown and being a body corporate which is engaged in one or more of the activities specified in section 2(2) above'.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 248, in Clause 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert
'and in the case of the British Shipbuilders Corporation one of those appointed shall be an executive director of Harland and Wolff'.
No. 243, in Schedule 2, in page 75, line 7, at end insert 'Harland and Wolff Ltd.'.
No. 244, in page 76, line 6, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

Mr. Rees: Before speaking directly to the new clause I believe it is important, and in keeping with the wishes of Ulster Members, that I should put before the House the facts on Harland and Wolff. They are the background to my views on the new clause, and I believe it is vital that these views are on the record.
When I took office in March 1974 I began a personal investigation into the position of Harland and Wolff. In addition to the particular problems of the company, I was concerned to find out what its relationship was with the then devolved Administration. I was and am still concerned to evaluate what public ownership meant in the sense in which it operated, the role of Government directors, the role of civil servants and how financial accountability is ensured.
10.45 p.m.
Above all, I was not unaware that Harland and Wolff had received large sums of Government aid. Indeed, in July 1974 the House was told that since 1966 the company had received £68 million in standard and selective assistance. It may have been a joint stock limited liability company working to the precepts of the Companies Acts and to the philosophy of private enterprise, but the plain fact was that it had been kept in being by the Government through grants and loans from the Shipbuilding Board and the Department of Commerce. This was done by a Unionist Government at Stormont and a Conservative Government at Westminster. This was not in any sense Socialism but an ad hoc corporatism that was not, I found, guided by any clarity of mind in any shape or form.
In December 1973 I had put down a Question to the then Secretary of State

and was informed that the Government would provide guaranteed facilities for up to £10 million as needed to the end of 1976. I found that the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce held £4 million of the company's equity—about 47 per cent.
In March 1974, on my second day in Northern Ireland, I was informed that the £10 million was already out of date and that substantial further sums would be required. This was in three months. Round about 1967, the yard had geared itself for the building of large tankers to tap the market, but by 1974 the facts of life had changed.
Revised figures were received by July 1974, and my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State made it clear to the House that, if the company were to continue trading, further Government financial support was required urgently. Prior to that date I was dealing with decisions of a Conservative Government. They did not treat the firm as if it were a firm that ought to stand on its own feet.
To provide further finance and to bring about changes that we thought necessary, we decided to increase the Government holding in order to give the Government a substantial majority in an expanded equity. I make it clear that this was this Government's first decision.
We also decided on a comprehensive review of the management structure and resources of Harland and Wolff; a full examination of the order book; a temporary moratorium on any new shipbuilding orders; strenuous action to reduce overheads; and training arrangements capable of securing any necessary increase in the labour force in a manner compatible with the manpower needs of the rest of industry in Northern Ireland.
We made it clear to the House in July 1974 that the steps taken were a rescue operation. Without it, the yard would have shut down. This operation was for Northern Ireland, where the yard is significant, and some of the money was found from offsetting savings in public expenditure in the Province. It was made clear from the beginning that it was not an open-ended Government subvention.
Eight months later, in March 1975, my right hon. Friend told the House that the review of the situation in Harland


and Wolff was completed. The Government had been in office one year. It needed that length of time to establish the precise position.
The only point I want to make—hon. Members can read the records of the time—is that the accounts for 1973, published in November 1974, had shown a £38 million provision for estimated prospective losses on contracts entered into prior to 31st December 1973. By March 1975—by which time the detailed financial review for which I had called was complete—it was clear that this figure had to be increased by over £22 million to about £60 million.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State say what proportion of the total Government subvention to Harland and Wolff has gone down the drain of operating losses and what proportion has gone to new capital investment?

Mr. Rees: The £60 million that we then provided to the end of 1978 was to cover prospective losses. Every ship being made is made at a loss. The £60 million is to cover losses in Harland and Wolff. This is what we were doing at that time, and it was because of this that we took the yard into public ownership. The yard was taken into public ownership, and the point I make is that it was without any opposition at all from any part of this House.
The House may vote against the public ownership of shipbuilding in Great Britain, but—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not want a political speech but they will get one. I notice that there are those who vote against public ownership in Great Britain but are ready to vote for public ownership in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Members of Parliament vote against public ownership in Great Britain but they vote for public ownership in Northern Ireland.
This yard is publicly owned. If it were not for public ownership the yard would have shut down two years ago. In my strong view, we are monitoring this firm, and the trade unions are cooperating magnificently in the situation. My right hon. Friend who was Minister of State did a great deal to get worker directors. But the plain fact is that the market for the products—big ships—has gone. There are problems in Har-

land and Wolff. The Government have done a great deal to keep Harland and Wolff going. It is already publicly owned. In my strong view it should not be part of the Great Britain nationalised shipbuilding industry which is to be set up.
It is right that we should accept New Clause 12. It is right that we should co-operate. But Harland and Wolff must be ready to be run by a future devolved Administration, as are rail electricity and the other nationalised industries in Northern Ireland.
I am glad that the Government took Harland and Wolff into public ownership. That was right for Great Britain. We had the support of the House on Northern Ireland. I am only sorry that we did not have it for Great Britain. I believe it right to co-operate, but I do not believe it right that Harland and Wolff should be part of the Great Britain nationalised shipbuilding unit.

Mr. William Craig: I think that my hon. Friends from Ulster will appreciate the message from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, he has not reassured us as to the meaning of New Clause 12. The words "consult" and "co-ordinate" may mean a lot or a little. I am not sure that a public monopoly, or indeed a private monopoly, is ever desirable. But if there is to be a publicly-owned monopoly, there is a duty on us all to see that its resources, coming from public funds, are properly used.
The Secretary of State reminded us that Harland and Wolff was a publicly-owned company. It would seem fairly reasonable to argue that there should be areas of common ground, especially in such matters as research. It is important that we do not duplicate the activities either in Belfast or wherever the headquarters of British Shipbuilders will be located. We should have liked to hear that kind of assurance from the Government this evening.
The Secretary of State will know from his own experience that the decision not to include Harland and Wolff in British Shipbuilders has given rise to cause for concern in some quarters. That is virtually abondoning Harland and Wolff to the mercy of the tide of the future.
I support the Government, but I want to hear from them in specific terms that there will be effective co-ordination and co-operation between the publicly-owned organisations in Great Britain and the publicly-owned company in Northern Ireland. I should have liked the Secretary of State to spell out in clear terms and to give the workers and management in Northern Ireland some assurance there will be effective liaison on important matters such as research into world markets and the types of ship needed. I think that that may be best achieved by ensuring that at least one of the directors of British Shipbuilders will be a director of Harland and Wolff. I was glad to be supported by some hon. Members in an amendment to that effect. That would illustrate beyond doubt that there would be some meaning in the words "liaison" and "co-ordination." I hope that before the debate closes we shall be given more precise assurances about the meaning of "consultation" and "co-ordination".

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am disappointed by what the Secretary of State said. Admittedly, he is up against the problem of time, but he must be aware that Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, the Chairman-designate of British Shipbuilders, said that he was creating a national policy for the industry. If the word "national" is used, it must inevitably include Northern Ireland. Therefore, in that policy Northern Ireland and its great shipyard must play a part.
The Secretary of State spoke of Harland and Wolff as if it were a bottomless pit. He knows that the world is suffering from a 60 per cent. overproduction of tankers and that the pundits in the shipbuilding world believe that by 1980 that situation may to some extent right itself. The simple question is whether Harland and Wolff is to be allowed to survive until it has a chance to prove that all the money that has been invested in the new equipment to make it the best tanker yard in the United Kingdom, the British Isles and perhaps Western Europe has not been wasted. Is it to be allowed to survive and to turn out the ships for which it has been so amply re-equipped, or is an arbitrary

decision to be made? On 2nd August 1975 the Minister of State said that it was the last chance for the company.
The amendment in my name and those of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) suggest that a director of Harland and Wolff should be a member of the Board of British Shipbuilders. That view is shared by the Chairman of Harland and Wolff. I have here a letter from him in which he says:
My personal view is that representation on the board of British Shipbuilders of a director of Harland and Wolff would be beneficial to this company.
More than the airy promises in the clause is required to give Harland and Wolff a feeling that it is in community with British Shipbuilders and not being treated to some extent in isolation. I hope that the Secretary of State will say something to give confidence to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I have listened to the Secretary of State putting the Government's viewpoint on Harland and Wolff. My view appears to be opposed to the majority viewpoint of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland on the bringing of Harland and Wolff into the ambit of the nationalisation programme.
I live in Northern Ireland and I know many of the workers in the Belfast shipyard, some of whom do not support my political views, but I still cling tenaciously to the belief that the Northern Ireland people, recognising the linchpin of the industrial programme, wish to have Northern Ireland people looking after the affairs of the Belfast shipyard.
The shipyard has received from the Westminster Parliament over several years financial assistance amounting to £137 million. I do not believe that any British Government, Conservative or Labour—particularly Conservative—would look with sympathy at the shipyard's problems, but perhaps next month or the month after there will be a devolved Government in Northern Ireland representing all political viewpoints. It is those people who will know the problems which are upsetting the Belfast shipyard.

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order afterwards. The Resolution of the House obliges me to put the Question now.

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 1

BRITISH AEROSPACE AND BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'any member or officer thereof' and insert:
'by or on behalf of any of the Corporation's members or employees'.

No. 2, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'or gratuity'.

No. 3, in line 26, at end insert:
'(8A) The Secretary of State shall maintain in respect of each Corporation a register of members' financial interests and shall ensure that all members of a Corporation enter in the register kept in respect of it statements of such of their financial interest as, were they Members of the House of Commons they would be required to register in accordance with resolutions of that House, any such resolution being construed, in its application to members of a Corporation, with appropriate modifications.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Snape.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered tomorrow.

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything to protect the interests of opposition Members and parties? You will be aware of the lengths to which we went in not moving our amendments and curtailing debate, to allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who made a particu-

lar effort to be here—to reply to what are recognised in Northern Ireland to be significant amendments which could have real implications. They cover a wider span than the Department of Industry and industrial matters.
It is intolerable for Opposition parties in that situation that the Secretary of State made a political attack and made little attempt to deal with the amendments. For him to go to every length when we were under the guillotine to put at risk our support for bipartisan industrial policies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard enough to realise that that is not a point of order for me.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have heard that I indicated that it was not a point of order for me. Is it a new point?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. Tonight, because of the guillotine it has not been possible for the Secretary of State to reply to the points made to him, whether we agree with his speech or not. As the House has passed the new clause and it has not been defined, is there any way in which the Government can tell us what they mean by the clause that we have now passed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members and right hon. Members know well that with the timetable motion I have to put the Question, and that is the end of the matter for the time being.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order. While I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it seems unfortunate that it is impossible for the Secretary of State to answer some of the points raised. Is it not possible for the Government to alter the motion tomorrow so that half an hour could be allowed for this clause and so that the amendments to it could be discussed?

Mr. Speaker: Motions which the Government table tomorrow are not my concern. What the hon. Members said will have been heard, but we have dealt with New Clause 12.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

RESTAURANTS IN PUBLIC HOUSES MAY HAVE PERMITTED HOURS ON SUNDAYS IN CERTAIN CASES.

'.—(1) This section shall apply to any premises for which a public house licence is held—

(a) if the holder of the licence gives notice of the application of the section to the premises in accordance with subsection (6) below, and
(b) as from such date as may be specified in the said notice:

Provided that a licence-holder shall not give notice of application as aforesaid, and this section shall not apply to the premises for which he holds his licence, unless—

(i) the licensing board for the area with in which the premises are situated is satisfied that the premises are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both, for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises, and that the part of the premises mentioned in subsection (3) below does not contain a bar counter; and
(ii) in the case of premises situated in a new town as defined in section 53 of this Act, the committee constituted under section 48 of this Act for the new town have notified the licence-holder that they have no objection to the application of this section to the premises.

(2) While this section applies to any premises, the effect shall be that for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) below there shall be permitted hours in those premises on Sundays. such permitted hours being the period between half-past twelve and half-past two in the afternoon and the period between half-past six and eleven in the evening.

(3) The purposes referred to in subsection (2) above are—

(a) the sale or supply to persons taking table meals in the premises of alcoholic liquor supplied in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of such persons, and supplied for consumption by such a person in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal; and
(b) the consumption of alcoholic liquor so supplied.

(4) While this section applies to any premises, then for purposes other than those mentioned in subsection (3) above, or in parts of the premises other than the part so mentioned, or except as provided by sections 58, 59 or 60 of this Act, there shall be no permitted hours on Sundays.

(5) This section shall cease to apply to premises on such day as may be specified in the notice if the holder of the licence gives notice of the disapplication of the section from the premises in accordance with subsection (6) below:
Provided that this section shall cease to apply to premises at any time on the licensing board ceasing to be satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (1) above.

(6) A notice of the application of this section to, or of the disapplication of this section from, any premises—

(a) shall be in writing;
(b) shall, in the case of a notice of application, specify the date from which the section is to apply to the premises and, in the case of a notice of disapplication, state that the section is to cease to apply to the premises on the date specified in the notice;
(c) shall be served on the chief constable not later than 14 days before the date specified as aforesaid.

(7) The holder of the licence for premises to which this section applies shall keep posted in some conspicuous place in the premises a notice stating that this section applies thereto and setting out the effect of its application, and if any licence-holder contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence.'.—[Mr. Milian.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.4 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this there is a considerable number of amendments to be discussed.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I explain how the amendments are grouped because it will be important when we vote.
The first group includes Government Amendments Nos. 43, 45, 55, 56, 57, 59, 91 and 97. This group, taken with New Clause 1, puts the Bill back into the state in which it was before the successful amendment moved in Committee to allow the Sunday opening of public houses. These amendments are a self-contained group and are internally consistent.
The second group includes Government Amendments Nos. 6, 10, 47 and 92, and Amendment (a) to the proposed new schedule, in paragraph 6, after "locality" insert
or is opposed by the residents of the locality.
This group of Government amendments represents the Government's fallback position if we are defeated on New


Clause 1 and the associated amendments to remove Sunday opening from the Bill. I suggest that if hon. Members vote for the first amendment in these two groups, it will be logical to vote for the other amendments in each group.
The group of Opposition amendments includes New Clause 3—Limitation of Sunday opening: Location; New Clause 4—Application for Sunday opening licence; Amendment No. 46, in Clause 54, page 37, line 40, leave out from "when" to end of line 43 and insert
There shall be no permitted hours";
and Amendment No. 49, in page 38, line 14, at end insert,
'(5) Notwithstanding the provisions above, the permitted hours under subsection (2) above shall only include Sundays in licensing board areas where the adult population express a desire to have Sunday opening.
(6) To establish public opinion under subsection (5) above, each licensing board shall, on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State, hold a referendum on Sunday opening and if a majority of those voting in the referendum vote for Sunday opening, the permitted hours shall be deemed to include Sundays.
(7) If, not later than 30 days of a date to be specified by the Secretary of State each five years from the date of the referendum under subsection (6) above, 10 per cent. of the electors in a licensing board area request a further referendum, the licensing board shall hold a further poll'.
The main proposals, New Clauses 3 and 4, are virtually the same as some of the amendments under the second group. If those amendments are accepted, we should remove further confusion by not voting on the Opposition amendments.
Amendment No. 49 in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) raises a separate issue on which the House must decide, though I think the hon. Member will accept that his amendment would fall if New Clause 1 were passed.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister rightly says that if the Government are successful with New Clause 1 and the associated amendments, the referendum amendment will fall because there will be nothing on which to have a referendum. But what will be the position of my amendment if the Government lose the amendments under the first group but win their fall-back position?

Mr. Millan: The House will be able to decide on the hon. Gentleman's amendment. My advice will be that we should decide against it, but it is a matter for hon. Members.
I do not want to explain all the amendments in the first two groups. It would not add to the clarity of the situation. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will accept that these two groupings are self-contained and consistent, and if I explain their general purpose I hope that it will not be necessary to explain them in considerable detail. I would make a few introductory remarks at the outset because this question of Sunday opening of pubs has excited a tremendous amount of public comment in Scotland.
Before I come to the main arguments I would say a few things by way of introduction. There has been a suggestion that on a matter of this sort we should simply accept what the Clayson Committee has recommended. In order that there is no misunderstanding, I should say right away that I do not believe that to be a proper relationship between any committee and the decision of this House. These matters are matters for this House and not for the Clayson Committee. Similarly, they are not matters solely for the Standing Committee on the Bill. This is a matter of such importance that it was inevitable—

Mr. Hamish Watt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milan: I had hoped not at this early stage.

Mr. Watt: Would the Minister not agree that in respect of the whole question of licensing in Scotland it would have been much more appropriate had the Scottish Assembly been left to decide the matter?

Mr. Milan: I hope that we are not going to have that kind of interjection because I have a lot to say. I do not want to make my speech too lengthy, but I want to say a number of things about this group of amendments. This is the only long speech that I wish to make and I hope that I shall be allowed to make it.
I was making the point that on an issue of this sort. I do not believe that one should take the view of the Standing


Committee as the final word on the matter. There has been misunderstanding outside, I think genuine misunderstanding but, unfortunately, that misunderstanding has been encouraged by certain people who ought to know better who have suggested that somehow or other the Government are going against the will of the House. I would remind hon. Members that the will of the House has not yet been expressed.
On this matter I have accepted all along that there must be a free vote. These are all matters of conscience and there is no Whip on the Government side of the House. There has never been any intention on my part to put a Whip on the Government side. I make that absolutely clear because there has been a lot of completely misinformed, as well as some malicious, comment outside in this respect. I have not attempted to Whip my own Scottish Members or English Members. Nor have I attempted to influence the ministerial votes either in the Scottish Office or elsewhere. I know that one of my colleagues in the Scottish Office intends to vote against my own view on this matter. There has been a certain amount of comment in the Press, but there has never been any intention of using ministerial votes.
I would also say a word about English Members in relation to the Division when it is called. I very much hope that this will basically be a decision of Scottish Members. It is not, of course, possible for me—it would be completely improper—to suggest that English Members are not entitled to vote on this issue. They are entitled to vote just as, on other issues, Scottish Members within the last few days have voted on what have been exclusively English matters. I see nothing wrong in principle about that and, therefore, there has been no intention on my part to say that English Members should not vote. Nevertheless, I hope that at the end of the day the vote will represent Scottish opinion on this matter.
A final point I want to make by way of introduction relates to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cathcart. I have never been in favour of settling this issue by means of local polls or a referendum. The hon. Member for Cathcart has tabled an amendment on that subject. I will not deal with the

details of it now because my hon. Friend, in winding up the debate, will be able to pick up individual points. I would merely say that I do not believe that experience of local polls in the past gives us much ground for optimism that this is a satisfactory way of dealing with this difficult subject.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman thereby suggesting that that system does not work in Wales?

Mr. Millan: I have enough trouble dealing with Scotland without making any comment on Wales. I would only say that I think that we should decide these matters in the light of Scottish interests and not pay too much attention to what happens in Wales or anywhere else.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before the Secretary of State leaves that point—

Mr. Milian: I hope that I shall not be interrupted too frequently or this speech will be far too lengthy and eventually will become irksome to the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State said that his hon. Friend would deal with Amendment No. 49 in his winding-up speech. Surely he is not suggesting that we are debating the three groups of amendments together. Surely the logical thing is to debate the first group first, then, depending on the result of the vote, the second group, and then the third group.

Mr. Millan: I think that I have made it clear that the way in which the selection has been done means that we are debating all three groups together.
I want to come to the main arguments on the question of Sunday opening. There are a number of arguments here and I shall mention some of them only fleetingly because they are not matters which weigh particularly heavily with me. That does not mean that I do not accept that they weigh heavily with other hon. Members. These are matter of personal conviction.
The Sabbatarian argument, for example, does not weigh heavily with me, but I understand that there are parts of Scotland and some hon. Members for whom that is the main and conclusive argument. I would say only that it is


not for me the conclusive argument. I am expressing here basically my own view, although it is the view that the Government took when introducing the Bill. Similarly, some people feel that Sunday opening would be extremely damaging to family life in Scotland on a Sunday. Again, that is a point of view that I respect but it is not the argument which weighs most heavily with me.
Those are not even the arguments which weighed most heavily with the Church of Scotland when it made representations to me. It was neither the Sabbatarian nor the family life argument which it deployed with me. It was in fact the arguments, to which I shall come in a minute, about the problems of alcoholism and drunkenness in Scotland, There has also been mention of the views of publicans and their staff. Questions have been raised about the standards of premises. These are all important matters which no doubt will be argued tonight, but my own view is that the matter which no doubt will be argued tonight, but my own view is that the matter which is the most important is that of health and alcoholism and the various consequences which flow from the present alcoholism problem in Scotland. If I were to put my view on this in a sentence, I would say that Scotland has a drink problem and that Sunday opening will make that problem worse.

Mr. Tom Litterick (Bimingham, Selly Oak): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Millan: As I said, I do not want to be constantly interrupted, but I shall give way on this occasion.

Mr. Litterick: Since my right hon. Friend has made something of that point, will he give us factual advice of the comparable incidence of alcoholism in England and Scotland, so that those of us who do not represent Scottish constituencies can better understand what he is saying?

Mr. Millan: I was going to give both the Scottish and the English figures, if hon. Members will allow me to deploy my argument, I hope to cover a number of the matters in which they are interested.
Alcoholism is a major health problem in Scotland at the minute, but it is more than that. It is a social problem as well. The problems of excessive drinking and alcoholism cause a tremendous number of social problems which come the way of the social work departments in many areas and are a considerable social burden on the community. They are also related to the incidence of crime in Scotland at every level from minor to major crimes. Anyone who has read the histories of life prisoners, as I have had to do during the last two or three months, will be depressed by the incidence of excessive drinking in crimes at that level, much less in the thousands of petty crimes that take place.
I want to give some statistics of hospital admissions in Scotland on the ground of alcoholism. The figures have gone up in an alarming way. In 1957 there were 840 admissions. In 1974 they had risen to 5,417. They now represent 20 per cent. of all admissions to psychiatric hospitals in Scotland. What is more, the rate of increase has accelerated over recent years. The problem is getting worse, not better.
There has been a substantial increase in offences of drunkenness in recent years. Indeed, the Blennerhassett report brought out the fact that drunken driving is a worse problem in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The figures are indeed striking. The total cost to Scotland of alcoholism is now reckoned to be about £35 million a year through absenteeism, loss of training, accidents and reduced output in industry, quite apart from the tremendous social cost. That figure will be given in the report on Health Services in Scotland for 1975 which I hope will be published later this week.
Those who believe that we do not need to worry particularly about this problem, despite these dramatic figures, because we can leave it to the National Health Service or social work departments, exhibit a remarkable degree of complacency.
The report on Health Services in Scotland, referring to the treatment of alcoholism, states:
There is no wonder cure for alcoholism.
The fact is that, even if we could afford to increase our facilities in the hospital service much more rapidly than we can


afford to do so at the moment, that would not deal with the problem, because we are dealing with something that cannot easily be cured by medical or, indeed, by any other means.
Therefore, we have an increasing problem which, in certain parts of Scotland—not least the Highlands—is extremely serious. There is no easy way out of it through the hospital service, social work departments, and so on. That is a sombre background.
Whatever individual Members' views may be about Sunday opening of public houses, I hope that they will bear in mind that we are dealing with an extremely serious health and alcoholism problem in Scotland.
We must ask ourselves whether the licensing system has any part to play in controlling this problem. I think that it has. It is not by itself a remedy, but it has a part to play in controlling the problem. If it does not have a part to play, I wonder why we have a licensing system at all. To those who say that the licensing system is irrelevant, I simply say that is not the experience over the years. We have a licensing system for a variety of reasons. One is that, without a licensing system, some of the problems would be completely out of control.
The licensing system has a relevant part to play in this matter because, although a good deal of judgment is involved and there is no certainty, there is not much doubt that increased consumption of alcohol overall leads to increased drunkenness, alcoholism and social problems.
Taking the United Kingdom as a whole, the consumption of alcohol has increased rapidly in recent years. For example, the consumption of spirits has risen from 19 million proof gallons in 1964–65 to 32 million proof gallons—almost double—in 1973–74. In the same period, the consumption of wine has increased from 27 million gallons to 68 million gallons—two and a half times as much. There has also been an increase in the consumption of beer of about 33 per cent. That increased consumption is undoubtedly leading to increased drunkenness and alcoholism and all the problems that flow from that.
The evidence on the increased availability of drink is not as clear as that

on increased consumption, but the balance of evidence is that increased availability of liquor leads to an increase in drunkenness and alcoholism and all their associated problems. It is true that once a person is an alcoholic, closing public houses on Sundays or even seven days a week will not be much use. Alcoholism is a serious and difficult problem to which no-one has the answer, but the licensing system has a role to play.
I accept that most Scots, like most people in other parts of the world, drink sensibly. Drink is not a problem for them nor is it likely to become one. But we are dealing with a significant minority of people for whom drink is a problem and one which, in some cases, becomes out of control.
In determining our views on these matters we have to strike a balance between the convenience of the majority, for whom drink is not a problem, and the dangers that will be created by a greater liberalisation of the law which will lead to an increase in the problems. The issue concerns where we strike that balance between the convenience of the ordinary citizen who should be able to drink without unreasonable constraints and the dangers created by being too liberal in our licensing laws. That can only be a matter of judgment.
Apart from the Sunday opening issue, the Bill is a liberalising measure which lengthens opening hours during the week. That is sensible for the social convenience and habits of the majority. Even that by itself, will lead to increased consumption and ultimately to an increased alcoholism problem. In my judgment, that is a price that we should be willing to pay for the convenience of the majority of citizens. But, if we go too far in this liberalisation we shall go over the edge of acceptability and increase the problems of the minority who cannot control their drinking and who are potential victims of alcoholism. We would take too great a risk with the Scottish population as a whole.
Although Sunday drinking and the Sunday opening of public houses cannot be demonstrated in any logical or decisive way to push us over that edge, I believe that if we make this change—which is so considerable as to amount to a qualitative change—it will push us


over that edge, cause damage and increase all the problems. While one can defend the liberalisation in the Bill of evening drinking, once one adds Sunday opening to that, the balance shifts and one takes a risk with the health of the people of Scotland. As the Minister responsible, I am not willing to take that risk.
11.30 p.m.
I know very well that the present Sunday licensing laws are not logical. In fact, the licensing laws generally are not logical. It is not a matter on which one can achieve complete logicality. The present Sunday situation is unsatisfactory. But it is better that we should continue with that unsatisfactory situation than attempt to solve it in a way which will lead to even bigger problems. That is why I am against Sunday opening of public houses.

Mr. George Younger: If the Secretary of State's argument so far is valid, would not those areas in which drink is freely available on Sundays, because of the number of hotels, have the highest incidence of alcoholism? Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to show that that is so?

Mr. Millan: The trouble is that in the places in which hotels are open on Sundays the drinkers are not necessarily the people who live in the area. Therefore, the question of evidence cannot—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend explain what he means by that? Is he suggesting that, for example, people who drink in hotels in Aberdeen in the main come from outside Aberdeen?

Mr. Millan: I was not thinking specifically of Aberdeen. I should have thought it to be common ground that there are some areas where there are more hotels than others, and that in those areas Sunday drinking is not confined to the local residents. It is part of the complaint of people living in those areas, in favour of the Sunday opening of public houses, that they do not like people coming in from outside. I am simply saying that the kind of evidence for which the hon. Gentleman asked cannot be produced to demonstrate the incidence of alcoholism in one area compared with another. The area with

the worst alcoholism in Scotland is the Highlands. My impression is that that is the area where the availability of drink is highest, for various reasons which I do not want to go into now.
It may very well be that we made a mistake in what we did about Sunday opening of hotels. Perhaps if we could look at the matter again we should come to a different conclusion, but it would be extremely difficult to do that. Once one liberalises the licensing laws in one direction it is very difficult to turn the clock back. The pressure is always for continued liberalisation.
My view is that if the House decides on the Sunday opening of public houses, against my advice, it will be extremely difficult, even for the Assembly, at any time to reverse that decision. It is the slippery slope argument.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a terrible indictment of the Scottish character that for some reason behaviour on the Scottish side of the border seems to be drastically different from that in the North of England? Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to discover why people in the North of England can drink on Sundays and the rest of the week and behave reasonably, whereas, according to what he has said, that cannot be the case north of the border?

Mr. Millan: I am coming to that. One of the arguments that have been advanced in favour of Sunday drinking—and it obviously affected the judgment of the Clayson Committee—was that by liberalising the licensing laws in this way one would introduce more civilised drinking circumstances in Scotland and that that would reduce the Scottish drinking problem. In my judgment, that is the most wishful of wishful thinking. I do not believe that this is a matter which can be wholly explained in terms of the licensing laws.
But to those who ask "Why cannot we be like the English? There is no problem in England", I should like to give the English figures. There is a myth that there is no problem of alcoholism in England. In fact, it is now increasing as rapidly as in Scotland, despite the so-called civilized English drinking


habits. The figures for hospital admissions in England have gone up from 7,600 in 1967 to 13,200 in 1974. The problem of alcoholism is increasing rapidly in England and Wales, and the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism has drawn attention in a recent report to the fact that—

Mrs. Judith Hart: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but it would be a pity if he were to use figures that could in any way be said to mislead the House. He must be aware that with a number of diseases, for such alcoholism is, an increased capacity for diagnosis is frequently responsible for increasing figures of hospital admissions.

Mr. Millan: The problem of alcoholism is not a problem of diagnosis. I was about to give the figures, which are not disputed, and then to make a general comment. Whereas in England admissions to mental hospitals were increasing by about 5 per cent. a year before 1969, since then they have been increasing by an average of more than 10 per cent. a year, and in later years by an average of 13 per cent. a year. So the English, starting from lower base figures, now face an alcoholism problem that is increasing as rapidly as is that in Scotland. Therefore, the idea that if we open the pubs on Sunday we shall somehow civilise the situation in Scotland and go to the English situation and not have an increase in alcoholism does not bear serious examination.
But at the end of the day these are matters of judgment and individual hon. Members will have to make the decision for themselves. It is one of the characteristics of the alcoholic that he refuses to recognise that he has a problem before it is too late. I suggest that many people in Scotland are refusing to recognise that we have a drink problem in Scotland and that they will not recognise it until it is too late. I therefore strongly advise the House to reverse the decision taken by the Standing Committee. That is the purport and effect of New Clause 1 and the various amendments related to it.
If the House does not do that, I hope that hon. Members will nevertheless vote for the second group of amendments, which from the Government point of view represent a fall-back position, although

not a very satisfactory fall-back position, and I hope that hon. Members will not think that the problem will be solved simply by voting for the fall-back position. Government Amendment No. 6 and the amendments following from it have the effect that if there were a move to stretch a public house licence from six days to seven days. whenever that move took place it would involve a new application for the seventh day and that application would attract the various rights of objection written into the Bill for a new application for a licence. I want to make it absolutely clear that in any case the effective date for Sunday opening will be 1st July 1977, which is when the licensing boards come into operation. The application for the seventh day could not result in the existing licence for the six days being taken away.
I accept that there has been an argument about standards of premises, and the standards in Scotland need to be improved, but they should be improved for all seven days of the week, and if the premises are not suitable for the seventh day, they cannot be suitable for the other six. By the Bill and the licensing boards we should try to eliminate unsatisfactory premises. There is no logic in taking away a licence for the whole week on the basis that the premises are not structually suitable and of a sufficient standard for the seventh day.
Another test is applied by the amendments. It is that of public nuisance, of an undue disturbance in the locality. Therefore, one can make a distinction between a licence which is operative for six days, and a licence which is operative for seven. Any public house, even a well-managed one, normally involves a certain amount of nuisance in the locality. That is almost inevitable. One could take the view that what might be tolerable for six days a week, could go beyond the bounds of tolerability for those living in the area if a public house opened on the seventh day as well.
The test applied in the new schedule is the test of undue disturbance or public nuisance. I hope that that will deal with the problem of public houses in the tenement properties. This is a very serious problem in some of our cities. Another part of the schedule allows for


Sunday restriction orders. Again, this is related to the concept of undue disturbance or public nuisance.
This is a description of the fall-back position. I do not consider this second group of amendments as being anywhere near as satisfactory as the first group. Those who are as worried as I am about the problem of alcoholism will be deceiving themselves if they believe that the second group of amendment will deal adequately with that issue.
Hon. Members take the view that I take on the subject of Sunday opening should vote for the first group of amendments. If we are defeated on them—and I hope that we shall not be—I hope that the House will accept the second group, which are not significantly different in purpose or effect from the amendments in New Clauses 3 and 4, put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I have deliberately kept the tone of my remarks at something less than an emotive level, although this sort of approach has not necessarily characterised a good deal of Press and other comment in recent weeks. I hope that the House will not misunderstand, and think that this is because of lack of strong conviction or personal feeling. I feel very strongly indeed about the problem of alcoholism which we have in Scotland at the moment. Therefore I shall resist very strongly indeed any measure which would carry a possibility of increasing that problem in any significant way.
I ask the House to vote for New Clause 1. If it does, all other amendments in the first group should be carried through correspondingly, so that we get a consistent Bill. If New Clause 1 is defeated, then I do not propose to move the other amendments in that group. It is not sensible to vote for every individual amendment. If the new clause is accepted, the second and third groups of amendments will fall. If New Clause 1 is defeated I shall move Government Amendment No. 6, and if that is successful I shall move all the other amendments in that group. If it were unsuccessful, the others would fall.
We should try to organise the vote on this contentious issue in a way which will give a clear indication of the House's opinion, and of Scottish opinion. I hope that this expression of opinion will

endorse the view which I have put to the House.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I think that the whole House will agree that it is not satisfactory for the House to have to consider, after 11 o'clock at night, a long list of amendments on which discussion is clearly destined to go through the early hours of the morning.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member knows that this way of proceeding was agreed with the official Opposition.

Mr. Rifkind: If the House were aware of the options open to us it would not disagree with the view that I originally put forward.
Many hon. Members will feel on this group of amendments that it was not altogether necessary for the Government to reverse the opinion expressed by the Standing Committee. On a free vote with all parties split, it came down in a clear majority to a decision that the Government are now seeking to reverse. There was a clear majority in each of the main parties. Now the Government have brought the matter before the House in an attempt to reverse the Committee decision.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is perpetuating the sort of nonsense we have been getting from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It is perfectly proper for the House to reverse decisions made in Committee, and it is time we got that nonsense out of the way because it has been bedevilling the whole argument.

Mr. Rifkind: Each hon. Member must make up his own mind about that.
The House is faced with a clear question of principle on the general issue. Fortunately that will have to be determined on the first new clause.
Those on both sides who supported the amendment in Committee did so taking account of the clear views expressed by both major committees which have examined in great depth the whole question of licensing in Scotland over the last 20 years. In 1960 the Guest Committee first recommended that public houses should be allowed to open on a Sunday. That


view was not accepted by the then Government. Thirteen years later in 1973 the Clayson Committee, after more exhaustive study, recommended unanimously in favour of the proposal subsequently carried in the Standing Committee. It is important that the two independent committees representing a wide body of opinion in Scotland felt able to favour the proposal so strongly.
It is important also to bear in mind the bodies which put their views to the Clayson Committee. The report pointed out that while those opposed to Sunday opening were almost exclusively the temperance movement and the Church of Scotland, there was on the other hand a vast majority of organisations which made representations to the contrary. They included all the local authority associations, the catering and tourist organisations, not surprisingly, the Brewers' Association of Scotland and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and many others. They included the Roman Catholic bishops, apart from those bodies that might be said to have a direct financial interest in licensing. When there are such diverse bodies as the STUC, the local authorities and the chief police officers all recommending in favour, clearly they represent a substantial body of opinion that one can reject only after serious consideration.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Church of Scotland's recommendation has to be taken into account.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One has to balance the views of the Church of Scotland and the temperance societies against the views of local authorities, the chief constables, the STUC, the Roman Catholic bishops and a number of other bodies and organisations. That is something that the House should take into account when considering the matter.
The Secretary of State concentrated, quite properly, on the serious problem of alcoholism in Scotland. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the problem is not confined to Scotland. It is an increasing problem south of the border—namely, in England. I think that all hon. Members, whatever their views on the new clause, are equally concerned about the problem

of alcoholism and finding the best way of dealing with it. The question is whether it is directly relevant to Sunday opening.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that although his argument was carefully presented it was unsound for two reasons. First, the spirit in which he presented it was contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill, which has been introduced by a Government of which he is a prominent member. If it is the basis of his argument that by increasing the permitted hours by opening public houses on a Sunday we shall increase the problem of alcoholism, that is difficult to sustain against the argument that we should support the other parts of the Bill that increase permitted hours on the other six days. That is fundamentally an illogical position. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he conceded that it was fundamentally illogical.
It is necessary to ask the right hon. Gentleman and those who support his point of view how they reconcile that position with the rest of the Bill. It is easy for certain Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who oppose the whole Bill and the liberalisation of the licensing laws. I can understand their argument. At least those who are in total opposition are logical, even if one does not agree with them. It is clearly illogical for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that it is permissible to increase the permitted hours on the six days but not on the seventh.
I said that there were two reasons for the right hon. Gentleman's argument being unsound, and the second is equally important. His argument would be proper and might be convincing if it were not possible at present to obtain alcoholic liquor on a Sunday. If there were no availability in Scotland on a Sunday it could be argued that the consumption of liquor would be increased tremendously as a result of such a proposal, but as the right hon. Gentleman conceded, anyone who wishes to drink in Scotland on a Sunday can do so. Hotels throughout Scotland provide this form of refreshment. There are many clubs whose raison d'être is to provide that sort of refreshment. It is because of the problems of overcrowding and associated


difficulties that various people, including the chief constables, have recommended in favour of this change.
The right hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out that many of those who frequent hotels for alcoholic liquor on a Sunday do not necessarily live in the vicinity. This is part of the problem. It is because of the non-availability of alcoholic liquor in public houses that many people travel sometimes considerable distances for such refreshment. Therefore, the dangers of drunken driving are increased. To get alcoholic refreshment, especially in rural areas, it is sometimes necessary to traverse considerable distances.
There is a further problem. Although there is a considerable availability of hotels serving alcoholic liquor in many of the cities and the more prosperous areas, in the industrial areas there is not the same availability. Equally, many persons in areas which are not well served by hotels have to travel a considerable distance in order to get the refreshment they require.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Surely the hon. Member will recognise his difficulty in proceeding with this argument about drunken driving in relation to the fact that only hotels and clubs are open on a Sunday, because the highest incidence of drunken driving is on Friday and Saturday, when public houses, hotels, clubs and all licensed hotels are open. The lowest incidence is on Sunday.

Mr. Rifkind: The Minister cannot have it both ways. At the moment, if only hotels are available for the supply of alcoholic liquor, those who do not live near them but wish such refreshment have to travel. If they are not within walking distance, the vast majority of people travel by car. This is so obvious that one need not dwell on it for any time. It is a direct consequence of the existing law, and the reason that certain bodies recommended that the change ought to be made.

Mr. William Small: If Sunday opening becomes possible as a matter of law, will it then be illegal for any public house not to open on a Sunday?

Mr. Rifkind: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question. I was intending to make this specific point. If the views of the Standing Committee are endorsed by the House, and if public houses are permitted to open on a Sunday, it is quite clear from the provisions of the Bill—and no one has taken exception—that it will be totally at the discretion of the licensee whether he wishes to exercise that right. If the hon. Gentleman and others wish to confirm this point, they should refer to Clause 55(5), which makes it quite clear that there is total discretion whether a public house or other licensed premises should be opened at any time during the permitted hours. It is totally discretionary. This point is important, because I believe, as I am sure many hon. Members do, that it would be quite wrong to force licensees or licensed premises to open irrespective of their own wishes on this matter.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Is not the position that many licensed premises are brewery-owned, and that therefore managers and families would be forced to work on their only free day?

Mr. Rifkind: This problem is less prevalent in Scotland than south of the border for tied houses. It is not the same significance. As I think the hon. Lady will agree, nowadays it is very difficult to force people to work against their will. We have many examples of this in many walks of life. Any employer who sought to impose such conditions would be treated with very short shrift. I do not think that the hon. Lady need worry much about that. I do not believe that in present circumstances it would be likely to be a serious problem.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would it not be very difficult for an employee to say to an employer "I do not want to work on Sunday" when there are 165,000 unemployed people? Would an employee be able to say to a brewery that he did not want to work on a Sunday and yet expect to keep his job.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): He should join a decent trade union.

Mr. Rifkind: The simple fact is that those who do not wish to work on a Sunday would not need to do so. I do


not believe that licensed premises would have any difficulty in finding persons willing to work if so required, especially given the level of unemployment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart refers. But I do not think that this is a serious matter which should detain the House.
Those of us who supported the amendment in Committee were very conscious that Sunday is a day with different characteristics and traditions compared with the other days of the week. It is for that reason that the amendment that was carried makes it quite clear that the permitted hours on a Sunday will not be the same as those on the other days of the week and will begin one hour later, to allow persons coming home from church not to be pestered or bothered in a way that might otherwise be possible. The hours in the evening are also different in order to take account of that.
The Minister referred to his fall-back position and to the various safeguard clauses which the Government intend to move if their initial amendment fails. If we are to implement this change, which I believe to be important and desirable, there should be safeguards to meet the genuine concern that is felt by many people in Scotland and the problems that may arise as a result of such change.
If the House rejects the Government's advice on the first group of amendments, most of my hon. Friends who supported the amendment in Committee and I shall be willing to support the Government's fall-back amendments, which afford safeguards. It is important to reach middle ground and to find a sensible compromise on this position. It is one which may easily be supported.

12 midnight

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend dealt with the concept of the fall-back position. That seems to guarantee that where no public nuisance is created a publican is bound to be allowed a licence. In a tenement situation there would be a nuisance. In a village situation there would not be a nuisance. That is the absolute reverse of the requirement, is it not?

Mr. Rifkind: If we read the amendment referred to, it is clear that the

licensing board is given a discretion to consider all the circumstances presented to it by the applicant and objectors and to take into account the usual criteria that affect all applications for licences. That is a reasonable approach to these matters. It will meet the legitimate problem.
This provides an excellent opportunity for hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies to remove what the Secretary of State conceded was the present unsatisfactory situation of licensing north of the border. I say to hon. Members representing constituencies in England and Wales that this is an opportunity to provide for Scotland the same civilised licensing hours as the public south of the border have enjoyed for many years. However, I do not think that the Secretary of State's amendment would do other than continue an illogical, inconsistent and unsatisfactory system of licensing. For that reason I hope that the House will not approve it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) should have complained about the time when this business is being taken. One hon. Member suggested that we were faced with Hobson's choice. If we had wished we might have taken this business during the daytime next week. However, the balance of convenience for Scottish Members of Parliament was in favour of taking the matter this week, even at this time of night. That was generally agreed on both sides of the House.
It was proper for the Government to put down an amendment to restore the position in the Bill. It ill becomes those who criticise the inability of Government Back-Bench Members to exercise a choice to say that the Bill was taken upstairs and that therefore there was no possibility of our properly discussing the matter by means of well-drafted amendments. With the best will in the world, and with the best advice, Back-Bench Members do not necessarily get the drafting right. That causes further confusion. I have no complaints about the Government putting down amendments to restore the position.
The main burden of the Secretary of State's case is that the opening of pubs on Sundays would lead inevitably to some


measurable, or immeasurable, amount of alcoholism. To some extent he is making a judgment on how people become alcoholics. He admitted that there was an inconsistency. We may extend the hours on six days of the week and allow an extra six hours' drinking time, but apparently that does not have the same effect as opening on a Sunday. The Secretary of State made a relevant point when he said that the increase in alcoholism was related to the quantity of drink consumed.
I am not a medical expert on alcoholism, but it is conceivable that people become alcoholics because their tolerance level rises and they gradually drink more and more until they become dependent upon it. The increase in alcoholism might be related to the extension of time by one hour a day. People may consume more each day because of that extension. But even that is arguable because we all know of the 10 o'clock "swill". The question is not clear-cut.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the operation of off-licences has a bearing?

Mr. Hughes: It is bound to have a bearing. Although the Secretary of State gave figures of the overall increase in consumption of spirits, beer and wine, he did not suggest that that increase was accounted for only by consumption in pubs. Probably most of the increase in consumption has been in the home or in restaurants, where families drink with their meals more than they did in the past.
The argument about alcoholism is to some extent fallacious. It takes us closer to prohibition, and hon. Members on both sides of the House may argue that the amount of alcohol available from all sources should be reduced.
There have been considerable changes in drinking habits over the years. There used to be bona fide travellers, but that system was a nonsense and had to be done away with because the law was being abused.

Mr. Tom McMillan: The abolition of the bona fide traveller rule in 1962 led to the horrible mess we have today. In 1962 a family could go anywhere at any time of day and get refreshment, but that system was

abolished and now we have boxes of drink.

Mr. Hughes: I do not follow my hon. Friend's argument entirely. The old bona fide traveller rule was not intended for family drinking. I am satisfied that the bona fide traveller rule made the position more unsatisfactory than it is today. There is free access to clubs on Sundays. People are not supposed to drink in clubs unless they have been properly introduced and are well known to a member, but if we are honest we must admit that the strict letter of the law is not being followed in every club. It does not help respect for the law if we in Parliament pass laws but turn a blind eye to the fact that the laws are not being observed or enforced.
There is certainly free access to certain hotels—those open for drinking—but even there the situation is not satisfactory because going into many hotels in Scotland is a bit of a crush. I am not satisfied that the civilised atmosphere for drinking for which most of us wish is present.
One serious question has not been properly answered and that is about the staff involved in working on Sunday. They have to work six days a week and they look forward to Sunday off. They feel that they will be under pressure to work, and in spite of what has been said about it being easy to get people to work on Sundays, that may be so for the wrong reasons. It may not be the big pool of labour willing to work but the reverse—that the pressure of that pool of unemployed is on the present staff who feel compelled to accept work on a Sunday even though they do not want to.
In that event, we have to accept that we cannot at all times decide the general law of the nation solely on the grounds of the inconvenience to one group. We have therefore to balance the inconvenience of one group against that of another. I seriously suggest to those working at this occupation that if they have not already done so, they should, whatever the circumstances, join a strong trade union and band together to ensure safe and reasonable working conditions. I would accept that the conditions in which most public house staffs work are intolerable. I do not believe that they


are properly paid or that they have proper working conditions. That is a remedy which should be open to them now and is not affected by this change, although I accept that they think it is.
There is strong ground for relating some of the control to public nuisance. I would agree that the nuisance for people living above a public house is serious.
On the second group of amendments, we should have to wait until 1977 before licensing boards can begin to consider applications and begin to enforce them on grounds of amenity and public nuisance. It may be dependent on how the House votes, but the Government can do something about filling in the position between now and 1977.
My balance of judgment is that the convenience of the majority should rule. We should oppose the first group of amendments and the second and leave the Bill as it is. Having said that, I hope that the Government will find an in-between fall-back position on public nuisance. I do not believe that it can be covered in the way proposed today. This debate has naturally caused a great deal of public comment and passionate argument by those who sincerely believe that it is a retrograde step to open pubs on Sunday. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the wee frees."] An hon. Member says that it is the wee frees. I am not a member of the wee frees or of any other Church, but it does not follow that I do not respect their views. They are entitled to them, just as I am entitled to disagree with them. One should not dismiss an argument because it comes from a particular source. We are faced with a serious problem about drinking.
My balance of judgment is that the convenience of the majority overrides the possible consequences—which I do not believe will be as dire as has been predicted. We should leave the Bill as it was when it left the Committee.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister was right when he said that this issue had aroused passions in Scotland. It has also encouraged some hon. Members to do some unusual things.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) who is supposed to be the great architect of

Sunday opening, as well as a leading devolutionist, has sent an open letter to the newspapers appealing to English Members to help force through Sunday opening of public houses in Scotland, irrespective of the views of Scottish Members and the Scottish people. In addition, I found in a wastepaper basket, where I was depositing something else, a Whip sent out by one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench urging English Members to vote.
There is nothing wrong with English, Welsh or Irish Members voting if they have been here to listen to the arguments, but I object to the trendy hon. Members from both sides who look in occasionally to find out when we shall be voting and do not have a clue about the issue or the special problems of Scotland.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and some of my hon. Friends that if we have Sunday opening forced on the people of Scotland by trendy English Members who have not been here to listen to the debate, we shall be doing a great disservice to the Scottish people.
I see that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is here. He is entitled to vote because he has listened to the arguments, for and against. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) may disagree with my views, but he has been here for the debate and I say good luck to him, let him play his part. However, it will be a shameful outrage if trendy Members come in and vote at the end of the debate just because they want to undermine another moral stance in Scotland.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I shared a similar fear to that of the hon. Member, but I was concerned that a group of non-trendy hon. Members might come in to reverse a decision taken by hon. Members, from many constituencies, who were concerned about this matter. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that we should like the decision to be taken by those who have listened to and taken part in the arguments?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not help to achieve that objective by sending an open letter to the Press. Not


does my misguided hon. Friend who sent out the Whip to English Members.
One worry of hon. Members who are basically against Sunday opening is that it is anomalous to have overcrowded hotels on Sundays where people queue five deep at the bars, holding out £1 and £5 notes for drinks. I know that some hon. Members believe that we cannot allow that situation to continue but wonder whether, as with devolution, once we get on the slippery slope we shall be able to stop.
I say to those hon. Members that there is a way. As a result of the veto legislation, mine is the only constituency in Scotland with no public houses, but that does not mean that the people of Cathcart do not drink. Some drink a lot and frequently. However, because of the way in which the law operates, one can drink only in certain places. One must be an ex-Service man, in which case one can drink at the British Legion Club; a member of the Labour Party can drink at the Labour Club; or a bowler can drink at one of the many very good bowling clubs in the constituency. There are also some licensed restaurants, including a very nice one called the Old Smiddy.
Some people will say that this situation is anomalous. I have been to these places and although, as a teetotaller, I do not take drink, I have enjoyed myself there. We should not be facing the problem that we are now discussing if we had such premises throughout Scotland. Such places as these—the Labour Club, the British Legion and the bowling clubs—are places where a husband and wife can have a drink and something to eat and where they can have a good time in proper circumstances. There are many places such as that and I suggest that is what we should aim for.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Although I am not a Scot I spent the war in a couple of Scottish regiments and I go to Scotland regularly to see friends. I always go up for a holiday during the summer holiday. I am appalled at the feudalism of the argumentation I am listening to from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr.

Flannery) is not going to make a speech. He is now giving us a history of his journeys in Scotland. He must make an intervention in the form of a question to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Flannery: An intervention can be a tiny speech and that is what—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Certainly not while I am in the Chair. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get this point cleared up first. Has the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough completed his intervention?

Mr. Flannery: I will complete it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point I am making in my wee speech is that it is an uncivilised practice to be unable to get a drink on a Sunday in a Scottish town. We should throw that idea out because it is feudal and backward and I am staggered to hear that kind of argumentation. That is my intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am calling Mr. Taylor. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, wants to give way he can do so.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).

Mr. Fairbairn: I was dismayed and upset just now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you rule on the meaning of the word "argumentation" because it does not mean anything to the Scots although it may mean something to the English?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we are too sober at the moment to rule on that word. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor: I would say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that we should not just make laws for our tourists. We should make laws for the people who have to live in Scotland for 52 weeks a year and seven


days a week, some of them living in pretty appalling housing conditions. Had the Government approached this Bill with that intention—unfortunately they have not—and had they tried to do something to change the character of Scottish drinking—they have not—I would not have been opposed to reform. But all the Government are doing is extending the hours of drinking and basically nothing else at all.
In the present anomalous situation we have hotels sprouting up all over the place, and in the most unusual places, where people certainly would not want to go to spend a holiday or even a night. Some of the owners might drop dead if they were asked for a room. This anomalous situation has arisen because of those who want change. Such people argue that we have tycoons coming from Chicago and flying from Dusseldorf who want to drop off in Scotland and build a £20 million factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). It is argued that if those people do not get a drink on Sunday they might not build their factory. Now it is suggested that if we let such a person have a drink he should sign a paper stating where he is going to and where he came from.
It is also argued there are many parts of Scotland where drinking is not a bad problem. I was in a town recently where there is a hotel with a bar open on Sunday. It is not overcrowded and it is a pleasant place to drink. It was called the Kingsley Hotel in Brodick. There are many places such as this. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who leads the Liberal Party, would agree if he listened a little more closely to what I am saying. Is this such a crazy situation? I believe that it will sort itself out. There will be more hotels and clubs. The standards of these premises will he much better than those of the hell holes.
Under the Bill, what incentive is there for the latter to improve? An appalling hell hole can make a fortune by packing in men, standing at the bar drinking themselves silly and drinking their families into appalling financial trouble. But if a nice hotel or club were allowed to open for seven days a week, there would be an incentive for improvement.
The situation may be anomalous now but it is improving. We are getting more hotels and clubs. With time and pure capitalism, demand and supply will come together and drinking conditions will improve in Scotland.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member has a nerve to say that beneficent capitalists will in time improve the drinking situation in Scotland. He has just talked about the hell holes that the working class have had to suffer. That is capitalism for him, and he should not forget it.

Mr. Taylor: I was talking about the law of supply and demand. If with proper legislation we allow it to run its course, better premises will emerge. But if we simply do what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian wants, we shall have hell holes open seven days a week, making a fortune and with no incentive to improve. That is what the supporters of Sunday opening are doing.
The way to improve the situation is to maintain the status quo and to encourage more places where people can have a meal and entertainment with their drinking. Will the changes which are being suggested make the situation better or worse? The Secretary of State made a fair speech. Every reasonable person must accept that with more opening hours—whether late at night or on Sunday—there will be more drinking, and more drinking means more alcoholism and more human misery.
What evidence there is suggests that in every country—there are recent examples from two States in Australia—which has liberalised its drinking laws there has been an increase in alcoholism and drunkenness. A perfect example is the one we shall probably get from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. That is the example of France, where anything goes. Even the Clayson Report said that the problem of alcoholism was worse in France than in Scotland—and that is saying something.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Member explain—I do not know the answer—why Italy and France, which both have the same liberal licensing laws, have entirely different alcoholism rates? It is very high in France and very low in Italy.

Mr. Taylor: As I think the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has said, the answer probably lies in the different methods of diagnosis in the two countries. Taking that into account, I do not think that the picture is very different.
All the evidence is that this great change will mean more drinking, which will be bad for Scotland, where too much is drunk anyway.
Nor can I understand the argument of the supporters of Sunday opening that it would make us more like England. Apparently the character of our pubs will change, and instead of people standing against the bar getting drunk, we shall see the vicar, the undertaker and the squire sitting around the old oak tree drinking half-pints of cider and engaging in improving conversation. That will not happen and there is no evidence to suggest that it will.
12.30 a.m.
If there is any doubt whether Sunday opening will mean more drink, I would ask those who support it to explain why the brewers also support it. Why is the licensing trade supporting the clause? Is it composed of altruistic people who want to involve themselves in extra expense by opening on Sunday, having to pay double time to their employees, and more money on heating and lighting so that they may sell less drink? Of course not.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if we had prohibition we would eliminate alcoholism? If so, who would then pay for our schools, roads, hospitals, and so on?

Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the brewers enable us to provide more schools, roads, hospitals, and so on, through the taxes that they pay, it is true that they provide a great deal by way of taxes. But I am not suggesting that we should have prohibition. Certain people are suggesting that we should have a change. I submit that they must prove their case for change. If we change in the way suggested, there will be more drinking, alcoholism and misery. Is there any evidence that the suggested change will not mean more drinking, alcoholism and misery? Far from it.
I was making the simple point that any business man—a brewer or anyone else—would be foolish if, for other than spiritual or altruistic reasons, he suggested a change which would mean his making less profit and having more expense. Yet that is the suggestion. I wonder why. Are such people acting out of pure decency because they want to encourage less drinking? If so, why are they spending fortunes advertising on television to persuade people to drink more of their particular brands? [Interruption.] I am sorry. I did not catch that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions.

Mr. Taylor: I think that I have dealt with some of the arguments that have been put forward by the pro-Sunday lobby.
This is not just a problem of drinking. There is more to it. Undoubtedly, Sunday opening of pubs will mean another significant change in the style of life in Scotland. The Minister referred to alcoholism, but we have many other problems: marriages breaking up, children being abandoned, and so on.
A stable feature of our society has been having Sunday as a day not necessarily for religion but for people visiting their families—their grannies. That is a good thing. It is not something to be laughed at. It should be encouraged. Sunday is a day for people visiting their grannies, uncles, and other relatives.
If one goes into any public park in Glasgow on a Sunday, one will see fathers taking their families for a walk. [An HON. MEMBER: "Probably taking them for a drink."] That may happen if this clause is not accepted. But a father with two children aged six and four cannot very well take them for a drink, even in an English pub, and I would not welcome it.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, representing a Glasgow constituency, will agree that it is a good sight on a Sunday to see the Glasgow dads out with their kids in the parks. That is something that we should encourage. I believe that the opening of pubs on a Sunday will discourage that practice. It will change our style of life for the worse.
There was a time in Scotland, when religious meant more than it seems to mean today, when almost everyone went to church on Sunday. That does not happen now. Some people say that this is a matter of liberty and freedom. What freedom will anyone living in a tenement above a noisy pub have from drunks who emerge at closing time? Will they have the freedom to have a quiet Sunday or a Scottish sabbath if they choose to have it?
It is all very well to speak of freedom if one represents a country area or lives in a pleasant suburb of Edinburgh. But there is no such freedom for those who live in most appalling housing conditions in Glasgow. I do not think that any Government, faced with our financial problems, will be able to solve our housing problems for many years to come.
If Sunday opening is accepted, those who now for six days a week have to put up with appalling misery, inconvenience and affront from what goes on outside pubs will have to put up with those conditions for seven days a week. There will be no advantage for them.
I believe that the proposal for Sunday opening is part of a general pattern of change in the accepted standards of our community. We have had many liberal reforms. The suggestion is that this change will make things better, not worse. We have had abortion reform, a soft policy on crime, and so on, to create a freer, more liberal and just society. But, despite those moves, we have had declining standards in all areas. I wonder whether we should take a further step.
If the House finally agrees that it wants Sunday opening we shall find that people in some areas in Scotland do not want to accept the threat that that will present to their standards. Is it right or is it wrong that we should—in every part of Scotland, irrespective of the views of the people who live there—force Sunday opening upon them? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) is a supporter of worker-participation and industrial democracy. Does he believe that it is democratic for Parliament to insist on Sunday opening even in the several areas of Scotland where the people believe that it will upset their standard of life?

Mr. Litterick: The key point is choice. It is not about whether the House is forcing people to drink but whether we afford to the people of Scotland the right of choice to drink on Sunday. This is democracy and it is Stalinist to suggest that humanity will not behave itself unless it is encased in iron, rigid laws imposed by an authoritative Parliament, or anything else which chosen to make such laws.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman might believe that if it were a matter of Rousseau, individual liberty and people being able to enjoy freedom. But if he visits Glasgow he will see that some freedoms affect the freedom of others. It is impossible to have the individual freedom of choice between Sunday drinking and spending the day quietly with the family or taking part in the Scottish Sabbath. If the pubs in Glasgow were open on Sunday there would be no freedom for anyone else.
I hope that we shall take the right decision. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) believes that Sunday opening will not lead to more alcoholism. I hope that he will read the report of the professor who spoke on the radio on Saturday and who was reported in the Press the same day. He was talking of the argument on pornography, that if we took away restrictions people would find restraint removed and there would be a reduction in the number of sexual crimes. Evidence from other countries has shown that the removal of such restrictions has led not just to a steady rise but to a dramatic rise in such crimes.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what has been the rise in sexual crimes in Scotland over the past five years? In fact, the number has fallen every year.

Mr. Taylor: We have not had the type of change experienced in countries such as Sweden. I hope that the House will support the Government in their clause and its consequential amendments. I say to hon. Members "For goodness sake be convinced that it will be beneficial for Scotland before you vote for any change." We have voted far too often for change without thinking through the consequences and we are in danger of doing that tonight. Hon. Members should consider whether it will make things better or worse for Scotland and its people if


public houses are open on Sundays. I say, unhesitatingly, that it will make things worse and that therefore we should vote "No" to Sunday opening.

Mr. Mackintosh: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Between them they have put the nub of the argument against Sunday opening. It is now clear what the argument is. I hope to meet it head on.
The hon. Member for Cathcart, though absolutely genuine, has it all wrong. For example, he says that because there is more consumption of alcohol things must be worse. Since I first went to my constituency 13 years ago one noticeable and enormous change is that men now take their women and wives with them when they go out in the evening. The inevitable result is that more is drunk, but it is drunk by more people, by the wives as well as well as by the husbands.
The House was asked why the interests concerned bother to advertise in the Press. It is because they want to persuade more people to go out to entertainment where alcohol is available. If a man, instead of drinking a number of pints himself, takes his wife to a social function or a properly-appointed club where entertainment is provided, and they both have drinks, more may be consumed in total, but there is no evidence that behaviour is worse.
Hon. Members on the Labour Benches should beware of this argument. It is exactly the same as we heard so often about motor cars. They were objects which used to be owned by a few privileged people. Now they are owned by many. The result is that the number of accidents on the roads has gone up, but people all enjoy motoring on a Sunday. The fact that there are more accidents, that more cars are sold and that the manufacturers advertise motor cars does not mean that the spread of motor cars is of itself bad. The same applies to obesity and the consumption of steaks, which has increased.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Before my hon. Friend gets carried away, may I ask him to return to the point with which he began? It is true that one of the marked trends of the past decide is that more women are

drinking. Another marked trend is a much bigger increase in alcoholism among women than among men. The very trend to which my hon. Friend is pointing is strong support for the argument that increased consumption inevitably produces an increased incidence of alcoholism.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If women drive, some women will have motor car accidents. We are discussing total behaviour patterns. Anyone who has looked at the social history of working-class areas in Scotland will agree that the total behaviour pattern in pubs and clubs today is far better than it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago. I distinctly remember that when I was a student people would not walk through Grassmarket in Edinburgh at night. When one went past certain pubs one would see people lying in the gutter. There were similar scenes in Glasgow. One does not see them today, because the behaviour pattern in those places has improved enormously over the period that the drink laws have been liberalised.
People's total conduct has improved. The fact that a certain number of people become alcoholic is not an argument against the better facilities, the better atmosphere and the better conduct that has prevailed in Scottish public houses and clubs in the past 20 years, when the whole approach to the matter has been liberalised.
My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cathcart made the position clear. Their point is that alcoholism is a serious problem in Scotland. We agree. Secondly, they argued that opening the pubs on Sundays would make the situation worse. That is the nub of the argument. They will admit that it is not logical. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) put his finger on the illogicality. The Bill is a liberalising Bill, extending hours, making it easier to drink. If my right hon. Friend's argument were correct, he should not be introducing the Bill. He should not be lengthening the drinking hours.
My right hon. Friend is apparently saying that he is not allowing people to get drunk on Sundays. Anyone can get drunk on a Sunday. He can go to a hotel


or he can buy the drink in an off-licence on the Saturday and keep it until the Sunday. He can go to a working men's club or a yachting club. I remember joining a yacht club where one did not have to yacht. There were two categories of member—yachtsmen and drinking members. There is no problem about getting drink on a Sunday.
12.45 a.m.
What the Secretary of State is saying is that if we open the pubs in Scotland on a Sunday, there will be a categorical difference from the availability of drink at the moment, or from the extension of hours on weekdays. He is admitting that his case is totally illogical. I suspect that there is a symbolic element in it, and that is why I thought the hon. Member for Cathcart put his finger on that case. It is that by opening the pubs in Scotland on a Sunday and making more drink available we shall somehow tilt the balance in the direction of an approach to drinking fundamentally different from the present approach. In a sense that is the key to the argument. It is a symbolic case which does not have a great deal to do with the availability of alcohol.
If one accepts that more drink means more alcoholism and that having easier hours means both, the logic of that argument is prohibitionism. That argument has been advanced in Scotland for 100 years and is the origin of the temperance and prohibitionist type of licensing laws that we have had in Scotland since the First World War. The logic of the idea is that unless we make it difficult to get drink, people will abuse drink.

Mr. Millan: The logic on the other side is that we keep the pubs open for 24 hours a day. I do not think that anyone in the House wants that.

Mr. Mackintosh: I shall deal with the logic of that argument in a moment. Let me first stick to the prohibitionist argument.
The prohibitionist argument is that if it is made as difficult as possible to get drink and if the circumstances are made as nasty as possible, there will be less drinking. If the hon. Member for Cathcart wants to know, I can tell him that the hell holes in Scotland were created by the licensing laws, because those laws

prescribed that there should be such conditions.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Rubbish.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is set out in all the histories of the subject. There was a prohibition on entertainment; there was a prohibition on seating accommodation; there was a prohibition on hours. The prohibitions made the pubs so unpleasant that, although not themselves prohibited from going into them, women kept out of them because only prostitutes would go into such places. I remember when pubs had notices saying "No ladies served", because only women of a certain kind would go into a pub. That was the logic of the whole prohibitionist case. Let us be clear—it has failed totally, for alcoholism is on the increase in Scotland and the present laws must be to blame, because it has happened despite the present laws.
The opposite logic is that adopted by the Clayson Committee and the Guest Committee and by others who have made reports on this subject. It is that if we liberalise the laws and change the atmosphere, there will be an increase in consumption, but there will in time—and this is where the hon. Member for Cathcart had a point, because it will not happen at once—be a change in the approach to drinking so that it will be treated as a family matter and as a social matter and will become socialised.
This takes me back to what I said at the beginning of my speech. Compared with 15 or 20 years ago, many more younger men go out with their wives and families and their behaviour pattern is totally different. Teenage drinking is very important, but the modern approach is not understood. If a young teenager wants to buy a drink, all he does is to get a friend who is over 18 to go to the off-licence where he can purchase as much as he likes and they go to a friend's house where they can drink themselves silly in a private room. That is the kind of behaviour that we want to stop, but it is perfectly possible under the present licensing laws and it is happening all the time.
What is much better is for them to be encouraged to go to a pub where they will meet their friends and their neighbours and other adults and where they will be in a social environment that will


encourage proper behaviour and where bad behaviour will become something that the neighbourhood knows about and ridicules and looks down upon. That is ultimately the manner in which we shall control teenage drinking, not by making it a secretive and furtive thing.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asks what will improve the hell-hole pubs. They will be improved by competition. I would have thought that he would accept that. If they are allowed to open on Sunday they will compete with the hotels. The hon. Member wants to retain the present anomalous position. Yet in the Scottish Grand Committee he described these hell holes as places where people were packed five and six deep, waving £1 and £5 notes in dreadful grotty conditions. He wants us to preserve that situation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: No. I said that this would change by having more hotels with better conditions. If we allow the hell holes to open on Sunday they will make more and more money. The present situation means that there will be more and more good hotels to drink in on Sunday.

Mr. Mackintosh: But the hon. Member for Cathcart is making my point for me. Why should people go to these hell holes if there are more good hotels with better amenities? The hell holes will have to compete with these good hotels. When he talks about nuisance under the present law, he must realise that the nuisance is transferred. People who live on top of these so-called hotels have their amenity ruined on a Sunday.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Who lives on top of a hotel?

Mr. Mackintosh: I am surprised that the hon. Member does not know that there are many tenements in the centre of Edinburgh in which the ground and first floors are the hotel, and people live above it and on both sides of it. People pour out of hotels like this at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and those who live around them lose their amenity.
The hon. Member claims that having fewer drinking places on a Sunday will improve the situation. I find that a very surprising argument. We want to encourage competition and to raise the

standard of conduct and amenity in hotels. That has happened over the past 15 or 20 years with the liberalisation of the law. The final step is to open pubs on Sundays and to enable people to choose the places in which they drink—places with decent amenities and plenty of sitting room where they can take their families and where they will have the opportunity for the kind of civilised conduct we all want.
The present anomaly of the club or hotel is a gross geographic and class unfairness. In my constituency in the working towns and villages there are the clubs where drink is available on Sunday. In the commuter areas from Edinburgh are some admirable and some not-so-good hotels for people who drive and drink. The places which are penalised are the attractive little villages in remote areas where the drinking places are genuine pubs. People in these villages have to drive up to 20 miles to a so-called hotel to get a drink on Sunday. This is gross unfairness. It is an odd thing to say to someone in a remote village on the Berwickshire border "You cannot have a drink here, but it is available a few miles across the river in Northumberland." No one has yet proved that there is greater crime, wife battering or evil in Northumberland than there is in Berwickshire.
I urge the House to retain the Bill as it was amended in Committee. I am very unhappy about the fall-back position. I do not think that it will lead to better standards or less nuisance. The Secretary of State has not distinguished between good quality pubs and second quality pubs, but he says he will draw a distinction on the grounds of nuisance. If there is a nuisance it should not exist at any time during the week. We do not want two qualities of pubs. Therefore I urged the House to reject both those amendments.

Mr. David Steel: Like everyone else I make it clear that I speak for myself and not for my colleagues on these matters. Those of us who were not on the Standing Committee should be grateful to the Secretary of State for the way in which he has set out the options open to us in the debate. I found the groupings of the amendments extremely confusing He has made clear in an open and candid


way just what choice is open to the House.
I am surprised that there has not been a greater sense of outrage among hon. Members at having to begin this series of debates at such a late hour. I am not a party to any hole and corner agreement made between the Opposition and the Government, but I do not believe that our English and Welsh colleagues would have tolerated such a situation in which a major reform of the licensing laws was being conducted through the House with more than 100 amendments beginning at nearly midnight. The hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) are always railing about devolution, but they should learn from this that in an overcrowded legislative programme Scottish legislation will be relegated to this sort of position.

Mr. Millan: The choice of timing was between this week, next week—and next week would not have been suitable for Scottish Members—or leaving the matter until after the Summer Recess, which would have endangered getting the Bill at all. But if hon. Gentlemen are going to complain about this matter they should be more frank with the House. The Liberals, for example, were asked to nominate a Member to the Standing Committee but they refused.

Mr. Steel: I do not see that the Secretary of State's last point has anything to do with the argument. I am talking about the right of the House to debate this matter. I am totally unmoved by arguments about choices which were never put to me or my colleagues and which may have been discussed through the usual channels. The main point is that it is grossly unsatisfactory that major legislation, particularly legislation which is not a party matter but on which hon. Members have to make up their own minds, should be discussed at this time of night. I do not understand how the Secretary of State can seek to defend the situation with the sort of lame excuses he has put forward.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman must be fair about this question of the handling of Scottish legislation. The requirements vary vastly in different parts of Scotland, for instance as

between the Western Isles and the Lothian Region. I was always in favour of doing it through the regions and not through Parliament at all.

Mr. Steel: No doubt the hon. Member will make that point many times in the future, as he has in the past.
Two novel constitutional points were advanced in the debate, first by the Secretary of State, and almost echoed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). It was the first time I ever heard a Minister say in a debate on a Scottish Bill that he hoped that the English and Welsh Members had left so that we Scots could decide the matter by ourselves. That is a very strange concept because the logic of it is—and I would support it—that we should long ago have devised some method of taking Report stages through the Scottish Grand Committee with only a final reserve power left to the House.
The hon. Member for Pentlands advanced the novel concept that we should pay very close attention to the 10 to six vote in Committee, and not lightly overturn it. Anyone can do arithmetic. A 10 to six vote means that those who won were dependent on only two Members taking a different view. If it had been eight—eight, the Bill would have stood as it was when the Government presented it. I do not think that on Report we can take carte blanche the views of a Committee that might have depended on the opinions of only two persons.
On Sunday drinking—

10 a.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to argue that English Members, who may have had long experience of the licensing laws and their operation in England and throughout the country, including Scotland, are to have no voice in this matter? The tourist industry is of the greatest importance to Scotland and the whole of Britain. There have been two contemporaneous reports—namely, the Erroll Report and the Clayson Report. Some of us gave evidence to both committees. In fact, I did. I venture to submit that there is a strong case for seeking some guidance from what is happening under the English licensing laws, even though Scotland may wish to differ in its views.

Mr. Steel: The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech will have been noted with interest. I am not suggesting that English and Welsh Members should not have a vote, least of all those such as the hon. and learned Gentleman who have been listening to our discussions. I was criticising the concept that appeared to be suggested by the Secretary of State—namely, that he hoped that Members such as the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone home.
I turn to Sunday drinking. I am instinctively opposed to any state of the law founded on hypocrisy. I accept that much of the present legislation on Sunday drinking is founded on hypocrisy. We know that it is possible to obtain drink in an hotel on a Sunday. That is a place that happens to have bedrooms sufficient to satisfy the licensing court. Whether the bedrooms are ever let is an entirely different matter. Equally, drink can be obtained on a Sunday in a club. I should not be opposed to a limited extension of Sunday drinking for public houses which were clearly to be places of genuine social resort, but I am opposed to a wholesale extension for places which will merely cater for drinking for the sake of drinking throughout a day when most people are not working.
That is the difference between England and Scotland. I accept what is said by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). The drinking houses of Scotland have improved over the past 10 or 12 years but they still lag behind the standard of public house that is common south of the border. Every time that I visit public houses south of the border with my family, which is not frequently, I am struck by the fact that they are different in character and ambience and in the facilities they provide for the family. That is one of the reasons for there being such a difference in the rate of alcoholism between England and Scotland.
Drink in an English public house is incidental to a form of social activity whereas there are too many institutions in Scotland which still to this day exist for the purpose of the intake of alcohol. There is that great difference between the two establishments.
The Bill as it stands implies a wholesale extension of drinking on a Sunday

that I cannot accept. Nor do I accept, although my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) does, that the matter can be tackled by the veto poll. I believe that the law of the land must be the law throughout and should not vary from place to place according to local whims. I remain instinctively opposed to the wholesale uncontrolled extension of Sunday drinking. There is much to be said for the fall-back position that the Government have taken, even though I am not entirely clear about it at the moment. However, it seems to open up the possibility of the licensing court extending Sunday opening only to those places that will provide a genuine facility for the community without irritation to the rest of the population.

Mr. William Ross: I hope that I may be permitted a few words as one who was more or less responsible for the layout of the Bill. I say at the outset that we are discussing this matter in isolation. Many of the English and Welsh Members who are here will be considering these matters only in relation to Sunday opening, forgetting that the Bill was a balanced approach to the Clayson Report. We cannot consider Sunday opening without taking into account all the other things that have been done, and what the Secretary of State and the Church of Scotland have rightly said is a liberalising Bill. Do not think that the Church of Scotland approved of everything in the Bill. What it said was that the
proposals for a Bill includes some mistakes, Indeed, it could be a mistake not to wait, having waited so long, until Parliament has devolved this purely Scottish matter to an Assembly".
I point out, incidentally, that the Erroll Report was made a year before the Scottish report and that nothing has been done about it. We are always told that we are fairly lax in Scotland, but we looked at the Clayson Report. As the Church of Scotland says, there were some things that it did not like. There was the question of the veto poll, and what was highlighted about extensions during the week, relating to the hasty drinking and the possibility that this led to drunkenness. We accepted some of that.
What the Church of Scotland eventually said was that
taken as a whole Mr. Ross's approach is that of a responsible realist. Certainly there


is nothing in his proposals which should prevent what we desperately need in Scotland: a spirit of true liberalism and true temperance".
We were lectured on the history of licensing in Scotland. What we have, in fact, is certification. Before the First World War, in the period 1902 to 1910, there was a proliferation of hell holes and drinking dens which were a scandal to the whole country. Hon. Members should not read the Scottish report. They should read the English report. The Erroll Report says that
it is instructive to consider the various trends in the level of problem drinking and the number of outlets at these points in time. The period 1910–1920 coincides with a very considerable drop in the consumption of beer and spirits: in offences of drunkenness: and in death rates due to or associated with, alcoholism. The decline in the number of retail outlets was also very obvious during this early period.
That was as a result of the introduction of licensing. It had that effect. The report adds:
We conclude that this is one case where changes in the law relating to the number of outlets, permitted hours and conditions of sale may have had a perceptible effect.
It does not mean that at all times they will have this effect. We have to be very careful in suggesting that we can do everything by the licensing system. The licensing system was essential after 1910, and during the War it was tightened very considerably, with the same beneficial effect.

Mr. Mackintosh: During the period after 1902, and also after the First World War, when it was put again and again to the Scottish Licensed Retail Traders' Association that Scottish pubs were much less satisfactory than those south of the border, it quoted laws which prohibited the number of seats in pubs, prohibited entertainment and the provision of meals, and prohibited many of the things which were spreading in England and which changed the character of English pubs.

Mr. Ross: The restrictions did not last all that long a time, and my hon. Friend should not mislead the House in relation to the number of seats. There has always been some form of prohibition relating to entertainment, but there have been considerable changes in that respect.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked of a fall-back position, but

if something is a nuisance on a Sunday it is equally a nuisance on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I have known many cases of people complaining of sound amplification and the sound of so-called entertainment. It is one of the curses of the modern pub. For the people next door or in the immediate neighbourhood it is a question not only of alcoholics at closing time but of what goes on all the time in the way of excessive noise.
When we discussed this matter in the Scottish Standing Committee in 1962 we moved away from the concept of the bona fide traveller in hotels and made considerable changes. The same proposition to open pubs on a restricted basis was put forward. A Conservative Government were in power at that time. John Maclay was Secretary of State for Scotland. The Under-Secretary was Mr. Brooman-White. He accepted the illogicality of the position but said that it would be quite wrong to open public houses on Sundays. He was referring to an official Conservative amendment which was supported by the Leader of the Tory Party in the Scottish Committee. There was a vote of six to 10 against, in a Committee of 21. That was not exactliy an overwhelming indication to the House of Commons that we should accept this proposal. The Minister said that he would rather have drinking associated with eating. However, he moved an amendment to open places where there would be no eating—that is, in public houses.
Let us recognise that the drinking habits in Scotland are different from those in England. What the Scots drink is different.
At paragraph 1.17 of his report, Clayson said:
The evidence available to us is admittedly incomplete but we have no doubt that Scotland suffers from a serious problem of alcohol misuse, both absolutely and in comparison with England and Wales.
Clayson deals with the quality and nature of drinking at paragraph 1.24 of his report. He says that the more retail outlets there are, the greater the difficulty with abuse.
Reference was made to the fact that the alcohol problem was related not to drinking in unlicensed premises and clubs but to drinking in the home. One


of the big changes we made in 1962 related to off-licence premises. I should like to know the figures. It is the easiest matter in the world to obtain a licence for off-licence premises in Scotland today. That is one of the biggest gaps in controlling drinking, especially that of young people. That may surprise some of my hon. Friends.
The most disturbing rise in the incidence of alcoholism occurs among young people between the ages of 24 and 34 and, next among those between 35 and 44.

Mr. Hugh McCartney (Dumbartonshire, Central): I should like to take up my right hon. Friend's point that the greater the number of outlets for alcohol the greater the incidence of alcoholism. I subscribe to the support of those engaged in the rehabilitation of alcoholics. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that the highest incidence of alcoholism occurred in the Highlands. That includes bothy drinking. That area has the fewest outlets for the sale of alcohol. It has the greatest number of restrictions from the point of view of Church morals. How can my right hon. Friend equate those facts?

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Ross: The statement I made is supported by research which enabled the Clayson Committee and the Erroll Committee to draw up their recommendations. As to the Highlands, the quantitative as well as the qualitative nature of the drinking should be taken into account.
The Clayson Committee skated lightly over one problem, which it handed over to the Scottish Education Unit. I am sorry that the Leader of the Liberal Party has gone. He might have been able to help me. The firm doing the publicity for the Scottish Education Unit was also doing the publicity for the Scottish Whisky Association. Perhaps the Leader of the Liberal Party was a director of that firm at the time. In any competition to determine patterns of social behaviour the distillers will come up with far more money than will the Government through the education unit.
Considerable changes occurred in 1962. There are now far more off-licences and hotels with licences than there were. Public house drinking tends to be not family drinking but male drinking. For years

I have heard this tale about civilised drinking hours. In 1962 it was said that it would improve pub premises. My hon. Friends in Committee who support the Sunday opening of public houses referred to public houses in Glasgow which should have been closed down.

Mr. David Lambie: My right hon. Friend that that public houses in Scotland were still male drinking places. When was he last in a public house in his own town of Ayr?

Mr. Ross:: I have the evidence given by my hon. Friends in Committee.

Mr. Lambie: Answer the question.

Mr. Ross: I do not know that I have ever been in a pub in Ayr in my life. My hon. Friend suggests that I know nothing about pubs, but I do not come from a teetotal family. I know about the state of pubs from what people closely related to me have said. My father-in-law was a member of the licensed trade and a hotel-keeper. I know what goes on from what was said in Committee. One cannot pass through Glasgow without seeing the hell holes.

Mr. Lambie: What about Ayr?

Mr. Ross: I am not concerned with Ayr. The city pub in Scotland is where men drink. They do not take their wives. That is the tradition, and pubs are the last places that should be opened on Sunday, which still has a special place for a great many people in Scotland. One place I am at on a Sunday is church. The church to which I used to go is almost surrounded by public houses. It would be offensive to many in Scotland to be subjected to that and to know that it was going on. I hope that we do not lightly pass over the question of the Sunday. The Scottish Sunday is different. Its difference is appreciated and we should retain that.
It used to be said that we should liberalise for the sake of the tourists. I hope that we shall not be kidded by that argument. People do not come to Scotland or stay away because of the licensing laws or the drink.
I hope that it is appreciated that the change we would be making is very serious. I am sure that the majority of people in Scotland who like a drink are not in favour of opening the pubs on a


Sunday. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind and that the Scottish Sunday and its tradition as a family day, as well as the tradition that it is a day of rest, are worth cherishing. When we consider the effect—

Mr. Gerard Fitt: If my right hon. Friend will forgive my intervening in a regional debate, after sitting last Friday evening with not many Englishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen listening to the problems of Northern Ireland, I am delighted to see so many Welshmen, Englishmen and Irishmen here with the Scotsmen to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views and the ifs and buts about this matter. Many Scots hon. Members have obviously gone out of their way to be here tonight to debate the pros and cons. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to accept the verdict of the Scottish Members? He has talked of the Scottish Sunday and the Scottish sabbatarian attitude. He is a representative of Scotland and may not like interference by Englishmen and Welshmen, but he is prepared to accept the verdict of Scottish Members, whether they are for or against drinking?

Mr. Ross: Of course I am prepared to accept the outcome of the vote, whether it be by Scottish Members or by the whole House, but I do not like it to be done by using an English majority. In the reorganisation of local government I was concerned that we had Strathclyde wished on us by the Conservative Government by the votes of English Members. The majority of the Scots Members voting then were against it.

Mr. Fairbairn: Since he has forced on the English agricultural community the abolition of the tied house by the votes of Scottish Members, I do not see the right hon. Gentleman's complaint.

Mr. Ross: I am not complaining. I am prepared to accept the vote of the House, but the people who vote should vote out of conviction and should realise the importance of this to Scotland.
The Secretary of State's speech was clear and lucid and pointed out the difficulties of the licensing system. He pointed out the changes made and said that there comes a point at which one must not take chances on our knowledge of drinking habits.
I shall vote with the Government on the new clause and I hope that it will not be necessary to rely on fall-back positions which will not prove satisfactory in the end.

Mr. Donald Stewart: My remarks will not commit my hon. Friends. As in other parties, some will support my views; others will be against them.
Most of the legislation introduced into this House has substantial backing. Even if it is derived only from a statement in a manifesto, the Government will have the support of their own Members, but I wonder where the demand for this legislation arises. No one in my constituency or in any other part of Scotland where I am known has said that it is appalling that we do not have Sunday opening and that Parliament should do something about it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said that brewers were in favour of the Bill, as amended, but from the soundings that I have made, I know that managers and owners of public houses have great anxieties about the proposals and foresee problems about staff, extra pay, working hours and so on.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentlemans represents one of the most beautiful tourist areas. Has he had a single tourist asking why pubs are not open on Sundays?

Mr. Stewart: No, I have not. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) should have mentioned the tourist associations as being among the bodies urging that a change should be made.
We are told that we must make the change for the tourists, but many tourists come from Scandinavia and other countries where the legislation is less liberal than our existing laws. Far from being deprived, they get even more opportunity for drinking. Why should we alter our laws for the benefit of tourists? If every country had the same regulations, why would tourists want to travel anyway?
We cannot ignore the question of alcoholism. It will increase if we permit Sunday opening. I know heavy drinkers in my constituency who go to public houses every night. I admit that if they were desperate they could get a drink on a Sunday, but they normally call it a


day on Saturday and stay out of the pubs until Monday evening. During that 48 hours, the drink can get out of their systems and, if they are the sort to get obstreperous when they have been drinking, their families will have two days of peace.

Mr. Neil Carmichael (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): If the men to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring were alcoholics, they would not be able to turn off on Saturday night and stay away from drink until Monday evening. They would certainly find a way of getting a drink on Sunday. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is logical.

Mr. Stewart: I was referring to men who were heavy drinkers, not alcoholics.
The amendment passed in Committee will give offence to many people to whom Sunday is a day to cherish. It has religious associations and is a day of rest and relaxation. We cannot pretend that it will not add to the problem. People should not have this nuisance foisted on them if they do not want it. I do not believe there is any demand for it. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his presentation of the Bill and on his resolve to re-insert this clause.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak because I was disappointed that I did not have the opportunity to be on the Committee dealing with the Bill, in spite of the fact that I spoke on the Clayson Report debate in the Scottish Grand Committee more than a year ago, and that I also spoke during the Second Reading of the Bill.
At first I suspected that the powers-that-be were deliberately excluding me from the Committee because of my anti-Government views on this Bill but then, to my surprise, I discovered that the powers-that-be had other plans for me. They discovered that I was such a loyal supporter of the Government that they put me on the Finance Bill Committee instead.
The Bill follows the publication of the Clayson Report. Dr. Clayson himself was a medical man and he and his colleagues on the Committee were just as concerned as the Secretary of State and his predecessor about the problems and

abuses of alcohol and the problems of alcoholism in Scotland. The Committee's main concern was to make Scottish drinking habits more civilised and to create an atmosphere which encouraged self-discipline in the use of alcohol.
I realise that some people regard the consumption of alcohol as evil in itself. But that is such a minority view that it is virtually impossible to embody it in legislation. Even under the present laws, and within certain limits, there is the possibility of the consumption of alcohol in certain circumstances.
During the course of this debate, there appear to have been two schools of thought. One is the school of thought headed by the Secretary of State which argues that increased licensing hours will lead to increased consumption which will, therefore, lead to increased abuses, increased alcoholism and so on. So far, I have not been convinced by the evidence produced by that school of thought.
Another opinion, which has been put forward in the Clayson Report, and again tonight, is that a liberalisation of the licensing laws, combined with an improvement in licensed premises and the provision of food and so on would create a more civilised atmosphere which would encourage moderation in the use of alcohol and which would, hopefully, make people more self-disciplined instead of relying on an external discipline imposed on them by legislation.
Experience in England, where the licensing laws are a little more liberal, and where there is Sunday opening, shows that according to the statistics, the abuse of alcohol is less than in Scotland. That seems to support that school of thought which believes that increased liberalisation would lead to increased civilisation in the consumption of alcohol.
With regard to Sunday opening, I fully appreciate that there are many people throughout Scotland who value Sunday as a day of religious observance, a day of rest and a family day. I have had several representations from my constituents, most of them, I think, members of the Church of Scotland, who have put this point of view to me and used it as an argument against Sunday opening. I have politely written back disagreeing with them but I have done them the


courtesy of forwarding their views to the Under-Secretary of State in charge of the Bill. I fully agree that Sunday should be a day of religious observance and a family day and a day of rest but, frankly, I do not think there is anything incompatible between that and a modest consumption of alcohol on the Sabbath.
I frankly do not believe that those who religiously abstain from alcohol on Sunday have a monopoly of belief in God or a monopoly of belief in Christianity or any other religion. Even Jesus Himself turned the water into wine. Perhaps the reverend and hon. Member for Belfast. South (Mr. Bradford) can quote me the Biblical reference and tell me whether He did it on the Sabbath or not. Even if He did not perform that particular miracle on the Sabbath, I am sure that Jesus Himself must have had many a drink on the Sabbath day.

Mr. James Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that when Jesus changed the water into wine, it was ginger wine?

Mr. Canavan: I was not aware of that I should have thought that Jesus has more taste than that.
I am not a perfect Christian by any means and it would be hypocritical to say otherwise. Like most Scottish Members, I am down here in London from Monday to Thursday. We travel back to our constituencies at the weekend. On Fridays and Saturdays, there are many demands on us, with surgeries, school and factory visits and so on. I look forward to Sunday as a day of rest and a family day. On a typical Sunday I get up in the morning and take the family to church. I usually read the lesson. I may say that I do not have to wait as long to read the lesson as I do to speak in this place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is not a church but the House of Commons, and the practices are not the same.

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful for that reminder.
In the afternoon, I may take my wife and family out. In the evening, after the children are in bed, my wife and I often go out for a quiet drink in order to relax. It has been our unfortunate experience

that many hotel bars and lounges are grossly overcrowded. It is almost impossible to get a quiet drink on a Sunday night.

Mr. Fairbairn: When the hon. Member reads the lesson, I trust that it does not take so long.

Mr. Canavan: The attendance at my church has shot up since I started reading the lesson.
This problem is even worse in the cities than it is in my constituency. I lived in Edinburgh for a time and I have visited Glasgow on a Sunday. The conditions in many hotel bars in the cities can only be described as barbaric. It is our duty to get rid of those conditions, which among some people may even lead to increased drinking.
This congestion would be eased if public houses were given the option of opening, but there must be adequate safeguards. I do not favour the opening of pubs on a Sunday at 11 o'clock in the morning. Many people who go to church would be offended if there were a pub or club next door to the church. My understanding of the Bill as amended in Committee is that opening time on a Sunday would be 12.30 p.m., not 11 o'clock. That is a reasonable compromise. It would not violate the Sabbath and frankly I do not think that it would increase alcoholism, either.
Any hardened drinker who is determined to have a drink will find somewhere on a Sunday. If we got rid of the barbaric conditions in some of the hotel bars it is possible that even the hardened drinker would be encouraged to drink less. I see no evidence that he would necessarily consume more.
The working conditions of the staff must be considered. In general, bar staff are industrious people who work long, anti-social hours, often in trying circumstances. In my opinion, no publican should be forced to open on a Sunday. The Bill, as it stands, would not force publicans to do so. Indeed, it would give them an option.
It is interesting to note that the Scottish National Party apparently carried out a poll in Clackmannan, the result of which was that most publicans do not want to open on a Sunday. Therefore, I


assume that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), who is not in his place, will vote against Sunday opening. Of course, we should bear in mind that the proposed Sunday opening is optional and that SNP polls are not very reliable. The SNP carried out a poll in West Stirlingshire, at the time of the General Election, and claimed that its candidate was 5,000 votes ahead of me. My very presence in this House shows that the credibility of SNP polls is not so great.
There is also a bit of dishonesty on the part of the Scottish National Party. It has been sending round scurrilous leaflets in the Garscadden area of Glasgow saying that this London Parliament, which allows the English to have their pubs open on a Sunday, will not allow time to introduce legislation so that the Scots can have their pubs open on a Sunday. The implication is that the London Parliament considers that the Scots are too uncivilised to have their pubs open on a Sunday. That is the kind of scurrilous nonsense that the SNP is spreading around, varying, as it usually does, from one constituency to another.
I do not think that any bar staff should be forced to work on a Sunday. In most cases, where Sunday opening is thought desirable, I am sure that a flexible rota arrangement can be made so that the staff need not work any extra hours in the week.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is my hon. Friend, as a good trade unionist, in favour of bar staff being paid double time on a Sunday with the effect that may have on the price of beer?

Mr. Canavan: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that matter. My experience is that bar staff are not organised into trade unions. If they were organised into trade unions—for example, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—they would be able to negotiate better working conditions, wages, and contracts which might not necessarily force them to work a longer week. The brewer and distillers are making enough profits to keep the prices down.
I am in favour of rejecting the new clause and of keeping the Bill, as it was amended in Committee, to allow the

optional opening of public houses on a Sunday.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) in what he said because I disagree with much of his argument. However, that is nothing new. If the hon. Gentleman's description of the pubs in Glasgow is accurate, he put forward a good argument for keeping them closed on a Sunday. I do not think that men will wish to take their wives into those pubs.
I find myself in almost complete agreement with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). There is little doubt that there has been no great demand, despite what certain hon. Members may say, for the opening of pubs in Scotland on a Sunday. I have had more representations against the opening of pubs on a Sunday than on any other issue since coming to this House six years ago. My constituents have produced a host of reasons for not wanting pubs to open on a Sunday.
We have heard about the Highlands and the high incidence of alcoholism there. It may be that those who live there are fully aware of that problem and, for that reason, do not want the availability of liquor to be increased.
Whatever arguments we may have heard about the Scots and alcohol—whether it be the temperament of the Scots or the climatic conditions in Scotland—there is no denying that the increase in alcoholism has been proportionate to the availability of alcohol. Hon. Members have argued that improvements have been made, but those improvements in the licensing laws and of the public houses have only proved that the more people visit public houses, the greater is the incidence of alcoholism.
I speak from a different view point from that of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) because they are both teetotallers and are known as such.

Mr. William Ross: No.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman may say "No" but people accept that he is as near a teetotaller as makes no


difference. I am not a teetotaller, nor are a great many of my friends, and it is significant that we speak from an experience which he does not have.
We must be responsible and as we study the situation in Scotland we must consider whether, if we agree tonight to open public houses on Sunday, we shall create additional work for certain sections of the community—social workers, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart did not include social workers in the list of those who have made representations to him. We have only to talk to social workers in our constituencies about the problems that they encounter as a result of alcoholism to realise that they have a different view from that expressed by some hon. Members tonight.
In the Highlands of Scotland tourists do not complain about pubs not being open on Sunday for the simple reason that they can obtain alcohol at their hotel or at any hotel if they eat a meal there. There is no demand for Sunday opening from tourists. I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) that one of the attractions of the Highlands in particular, is that life is not the same as it is in England or as it is in the south of Scotland. Why should we bow to the pressure of small groups when tourism in the Highlands is booming in such a healthy fashion?
The words of the Churches should not necessarily be our main guide in taking this decision, but there is little doubt that Sunday opening would be offensive to many people—and I again refer to my own part of the Highlands where the tradition of church-going has survived to a greater extent than in other parts of the country.
There is no public demand for Sunday opening and I hope that the House, having considered the arguments of those who advocate that policy, will feel that the Government are taking the correct action in their clause. I shall support the Government on this issue and I hope that other right hon. and hon. Members will do the same.

Mr. Carmichael: We have all received quite a number of letters on the subject. I had a fair number from my constituency, almost all saying that the pubs

should not be opened on Sundays. I have a great deal of respect for the people who wrote.
We all have the same object. I want alcoholism and the consumption of alcohol in Scotland to be reduced, but I do not believe that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will achieve that reduction. Many hon. Members have pointed out the illogicality of the use of the argument that greater availability of drink leads to more alcoholism when we are extending pubs' opening hours by six hours a week.
I am not a frequenter of public houses. Like many hon. Members, I drink very little, but I shall be opposing the Government on the clause. My right hon. Friend advanced a good case for prohibition, but everyone fights shy of that. We know that it is a nonsense and does not work. One cannot impose such laws on a modern society.
However, I am surprised that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have not suggested at least a drastic reduction in the advertising of alcohol. The antismoking campaign was particularly successful. There has been a big drop in the number of people smoking, if not in the consumption of tobacco. I should be only too willing to support any restriction on the advertising of alcohol, particularly on television.
One hon. Member spoke of the hypocrisy in Scotland on the subject of drinking. One of the contradictions is that we have a great deal of advertising of alcohol—on television, at the cinema, in the Press and on hoardings—and yet at the same time we make drinking a great mystery. Secretive and furtive drinking is part of the problem. Young people in Scotland find that the pubs are a mystery. Until fairly recently—and it may still be the case—pubs had to be boarded up and have frosted glass so that no one could see in. Doors were not allowed to remain open, and it was illegal to take a glass of drink out. Therefore, young people have had the idea that there is something wonderful and secret about drinking. That always attracts them.

Mr. Harry Ewing: There is provision in the Bill for what is described as alfresco drinking.

Mr. Carmichael: The mystery of drinking is part of the whole problem in Scotland. I still feel strange when I go into a pub. I feel that it is a strange world, because as a young boy in the East End of Glasgow I saw pubs as mysterious places. I think that it was John Calder who said in the Daily Record recently that a man's reputation could be ruined by someone just saying "He drinks." There is a great deal of hypocrisy about drinking. I do not think that in the modern world alcoholism is totally related to the availability of drink. The stresses of modern life have a great deal to do with it.
The first question that comes to mind on Sunday opening is "What about the staff?" People who want Sunday opening have told me that they may have to pay more for their drink, that they cannot have the staff on the cheap.
There is nothing wrong with talking about liberalisation. We have moved a great deal. There are not many drinking dens in Glasgow now. Glasgow always gets knocked around in the House, particularly by Members for other Scottish areas, but there has been an enormous improvement in the past 10 to 15 years. The increase in the number of licensed grocers and the increase in advertising have not helped to diminish the availability of drink.
Hypocrisy was not better exemplified than by what seemed to be a telling point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). He mentioned the veto poll and the bona fide traveller. I lived on the border of Glasgow and Lanarkshire. The number of people trooping into Glasgow in bus loads to get a drink in a hotel was appalling. The veto poll is another piece of incredible hypocrisy.
Next to my constituency is that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who represents Whiteinch, which is a "dry" area. It is part of the folk lore of Partick that the "dries" of Whiteinch were supplied with money to run their campaigns every two or three years by the publicans and licensed grocers in Partick, who did not want to have a "wet" area next to them. Hell holes were created because people from Cathcart and Whiteinch moved into Partick to get a drink. When Kirkin-

tilloch was dry, one could hardly move in Glasgow bus station on a Sunday night because of the number of people waiting to get the last bus back to Kirkintilloch, many of them having been drinking disgustingly.
I represent a densely populated area. The public house tied to the tenement is rapidly disappearing from Glasgow. One cannot have as many municipal houses as we have and not expect the old tenements to disappear, and they are disappearing, sometimes too rapidly for people to have a chance to settle down. However, I am concerned about the pubs that are left and I am anxious lest hypocrisy prevails and there is a fight to maintain "dry" areas and other restrictions because of the objections of local people.
I suspect that it will be the more articulate people from Cathcart and similar places who will raise objections with the licensing boards. I am also a little anxious about the membership of the boards. If they are anything like the other boards we have, they are likely to pay more attention to people from "good" areas and less to people who come from areas such as mine and who are less articulate.
Unless I am given considerable reassurance about how the boards are to operate—and I shall listen to my hon. Friend's winding-up speech with close attention—I shall want to leave the Bill as it was when it left the Standing Committee, and I shall support the opening of pubs on a Sunday, with all the risks, for I believe that the risks involved in the opposite course are greater.

Sir John Gilmour: Having listened to the lesson being read by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), I felt tempted to suggest that we have a psalm or a hymn between speeches.
In all seriousness, I suggest that we have not got down to the different effects that the Bill will have in different parts of Scotland. This is a facet of the argument that ought to be developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) said how little demand there was for the Sunday opening of public houses in the North of Scotland. I can easily understand why that is so. For instance, in Sutherland there are 50 hotels and four public houses. In


the county of Caithness there are 20 hotels and one pub. In Ross and Cromarty there are 116 hotels and 30 pubs. In my county of Fife there are 108 hotels and 91 pubs. Compare these figures with the city of Glasgow where there are 43 hotels and 790 pubs. For ordinary people at least half of the Glasgow hotels are not available anyway because of the prices charged in them. Obviously, we have a very different situation in different parts of Scotland.
2.0 a.m.
How do we make the difficult change? In Committee, I voted for the opening of public houses in Scotland on Sunday, and I still feel that that is right. If people can go into their own local public house on a Sunday, that is more likely to improve the standard of public houses generally.
If it is impossible, as has been said, for a man to take his wife or girl friend to a pub, surely the reason is that it is a six-day type of place designed for men only. If it were to be open over the weekend, there would be an opportunity to make it a more attractive place to which people can go.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If a pub is open six days a week, and is suitable only for men, how does the situation change by opening it on Sunday as well?

Sir John Gilmour: If there is a tradition that a pub is open only on weekdays, it tends to be a male preserve. Undoubtedly there are public houses which are malt-only preserves anyway. But in the long run, if public houses are open on Sunday there will be a change in their character. Men will find that they are places where they can take their wives and girl friends. They will no longer be hell holes but perfectly ordinary establishments.
Admittedly there will be real difficulties in cities such as Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh and Aberdeen where the proportion of hotels to public houses is very different from that in country areas such as the Highlands and Perthshire. However, I believe that we should face up to the difficulties and make the change.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am not prepared, at this late hour, to develop my argument, but at Committee stage I was against the opening of pubs in Scotland

on Sunday and I hold on to this view now, quite unrepentantly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) and other hon. Members have referred to the representations of the National Association of Licensed House Managers. I found representations from members of that Association very telling, because they know that they have to work 70 to 80 hours a week at present, and they know that if there is Sunday opening of pubs, regardless of what has been said about shift work and extra rest days, they will have to work on Sundays as well.
It is not good enough to throw out charges of hypocrisy, as my hon. Friend did, acknowledge the concern and anxiety over longer working hours and then vote for the measure. Many members of the association will have no choice whatever about whether their pubs will open on Sunday. That decision will be made by the major brewing organisations.
My hon. Friends would be horrified if in any other context they were accused of siding with big business, but it is exactly the side of big business that they are taking on this occasion. They would be horrified if they were accused if disregarding the views of a trade union in an industry, but in this case they are disregarding the views of the one major employee organisation in this industry.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman said that in the vast majority of cases the decision would be taken not by the licensee but by the brewery that owned the pub. The Clayson Committee report stated that only 27 per cent. of licensed premises in Scotland are owned by breweries compared with 86 per cent. in England and Wales.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Member is perfectly well aware that that does not alter the substance of the argument because the majority of public houses in Scotland, whether or not they are owned by the brewing organisations, are tied very firmly to the supplies of that company and the company can exert a very strong pull on the policies of the pub. In addition, whatever may be the present balance, the trend is towards greater dominance of the public houses by the brewing organisations.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In a sense, whether a pub is owned by the breweries or is tied to them is irrelevant, and I concede to my hon. Friend that the decision will be taken by the owners.

Mr. Cook: I am afraid that that contribution is lost on me but I reiterate that the major employee organisation involved in the industry knows that its members will have to work longer hours on top of an already long working week.
Another feature of the arguments of those who favour Sunday opening is that we must have either one extreme or the other, that we could have 24-hour opening of pubs and total abolition of licensing laws, or total prohibition. We are all aware that the human mind gropes instinctively for two opposing contrasts. We know that when we go to the electorate my hon. Friends and I like to pose two stark choices. We offer ourselves as representing full-blooded humane Socialism as opposed to someone representing savage atavistic Conservatism at its worst. But there are always more than just two extremes. Often there is a sensible compromise, in this case to provide a certain restriction of access to alcohol but which can provide a prefectly adequate freedom of access to alcohol in a civilised context. I hope that hon. Members will stop trying to direct the debate into one of two positive polarised aspects.
Hon. Members have also raised the question whether the incidence of alcoholism in Scotland is necessarily related to our licensing laws. We must be plain, and some hon. Members do not seem convinced of it yet, that we have an extremely serious problem of alcoholism in Scotland. The problem is not only bad but accelerating. It is not a question of recording technique. Even if it is argued that our hospitals are now more capable of recognising, diagnosing and admitting alcoholics than before, it is difficult to understand why in Scotland we have seven times as many admissions for alcoholism than in England. Are we to believe that our hospital service is seven times better at diagnosing and catching alcoholics?
It is difficult to understand that in the last 15 years offences of drunkenness have doubled in Edinburgh. Are we to believe that this is becaue we have a more

vigilant police force which is catching and identifying drunks on the streets much more effectively than 15 years ago? That is hard to believe. It has been said many times that there is a more restrictive licensing law in Scotland than there is in England, and that that cannot be related to the fact that we have a high incidence of alcoholism.
It is said "They have longer drinking hours in England but less alcoholism. If we had longer drinking hours we might have less alcoholism." The studies that have been carried out in 25 countries have shown repeatedly that increased access to alcohol leads to increased consumption and that increased consumption increases the incidence of alcoholism. It does not matter which group in society is studied, be it women or children, the result is an increased incidence of alcoholism.
We have a serious problem of alcoholism, a problem that is worsening. If we allow the opening of public houses on Sundays, there is a possibility that the problem will increase. However, speculative or doubtful that possibility may be said to be, it is a matter that weighs heavily with me. It is an argument that I find overpowering.
I cannot pretend to understand why it is that the English, who have longer drinking hours, have a lower incidence of alcoholism. The origins of alcoholism in our society are complex and I am not clever enough wholly to understand them. It is a remarkable fact that a high proportion of those convicted of drunkenness in England originate from Ireland or Scotland. Even when we transport the Celts into the civilised English drinking system they seem to throw up a greater problem of alcoholism. It is a difficult problem that is not properly understood.
There can be no doubt that if we carry out this reform we risk worsening the problem of alcoholism in our country. That is a risk from which we cannot run away. We can say that on balance we accept that there is a danger of increasing alcoholism but we wish to increase the freedom of the individual. That is a legitimate point of view, but it cannot be denied that we are balancing the greater freedom to have access to drink with the strong posibility of increasing


the rate of alcoholism. I am not prepared to increase access given that balance.
Sunday is a day of rest not only for those who work in the public houses but for those who have to live beside them. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said that he has no public houses in his constituency. He is rather more fortunate than most of us. I have more than my fair share for the whole of Edinburgh because I represent a central area. There are plenty of bona fide travellers for six days a week who go into central Edinburgh to drink in the public houses, but if those who have talked about civilised drinking visited some of the public houses in my constituency in certain areas they would find it difficult to recognise the description that we have heard tonight. If they visited these public houses, they would find that the neighbours have constantly to put up with fighting and brawling in the streets outside. That is almost a nightly occurrence. The neighbours are used to the spectacle of vomit on the pavements when they go out the next day. They are accustomed to washing the urine off the steps the following day. They would find it intolerable if they were to have to put up with those conditions on the seventh day. I have no doubt about the balance of opinion in my constituency.
The fall-back position that the Government have prepared has necessitated a considerable amount of effort and thought. As a fall-back position, it has a good deal to commend it. I welcome the provision that the Government have included in an attempt to protect residents and tenants. Nevertheless, I feel that what is proposed is greatly inferior to the present position. I shall still vote for the status quo.

Mr. Russell Johnston: As has been indicated by those who have immediately preceded me, it is becoming rather late in the argument to introduce anything that is new. Nevertheless, I think we each have an obligation to express a view on a matter that has aroused a great deal of genuine controversy in Scotland.
It has already been said that the Secretary of State was in many ways rather disingenuous when he emphasised at the beginning that his view on Sunday open-

ing was in no way affected by Sabbatarian attitudes. I think it must be recognised that for many people in Scotland their view is affected by just such attitudes. It has certainly been the principal motivation in the Church lobby to which most of us have been subjected.
I do not know what has been the experience of other hon. Members but I have had approximately 230 letters from my constituency, all the writers being opposed to the opening of public houses on Sunday. Virtually all of them were directly motivated by statements by ministers in pulpits.
2.15 a.m.
It is perfectly proper that the Church should express a view on this matter. It has experience of it through the normal activity of ministers. But I still feel that the concentration on an issue of this sort to the exclusion of many others is not a particularly good reflection upon the Church.
Together with other hon. Members from both sides of the House, I discussed with a joint deputation of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland the opening of public houses on Sunday. That was the first time in 12 years in this House that I had met such a deputation about anything at all.
I should have thought that the role of the Church involves more than talking about drink alone, divorce alone or abortion alone. There are matters such as the education of our children, social deprivation, homelessness, unemployment, the disabled, to which the Church would do well to direct its attention, rather than concentrating alone on issues such as that before the House, important though it is.
If the Church is concerned solely with issues of this kind, it rather indicates an introvert attitude within it, which leads me to feel that it is getting somewhat out of touch with the principal social imperatives with which we have to deal.
Despite what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) said about the idea of veto polls being incredible hypocrisy, I frankly think that that is the most logical position of all. Indeed, it is the position set out in Amendment No. 49.

Mr. Carmichael: I can see the hon. Gentleman's point. The hypocrisy arises


in a city area, when there is only a 20-minute walk or a five-minute car run required to move from a "dry" to a "wet" area, and the "wet" area tends to get all the problems. It is quite different from the position where there are fairly long distances between "wet" and "dry" areas.

Mr. Johnston: I quite accept the validity of what the hon. Gentleman says, but in making some sort of local option possible one could in the end base it, as Amendment No. 49 does, only upon the licensing board areas. In the case of the cities, this means the District Council of Glasgow, the District Council of Edinburgh and the District Council of Dundee. That would obviate the kind of exploitation to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The way in which the amendments are cast makes it necessary for me to vote with the Government on New Clause 1. Nevertheless, in doing so I am personally quite sharply and painfully aware, particularly as a Liberal, that there are large areas in Scotland—especially, perhaps, in Central Scotland—in which the democratic view of the area is in favour of Sunday opening.
I do not particularly want to repress that local choice. I do not want to have a flat view imposed on my area, nor do I particularly want to impose a view on other areas, either. I know equally—certainly this has been the pattern of the debate—that there are few certitudes in this question of alcoholism. The hon.Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) articulated this well.
Several hon. Members asked whether alcoholism increased when drinking hours were extended. Some said that that occurred. Others questioned that. Some said that when more companionable conditions were created, wives went into pubs, which increased drinking without necessarily increasing the rate of alcoholism.
Why is the incidence of alcoholism twice as high in Scotland as in England? Why is it twice as high in the Highlands as in the whole of Scotland? There are no licensing laws in Italy and France other than market forces. The pubs and cafés remain open as long as there are customers in them. However, there is a high rate of alcoholism in France and a

relatively low rate in Italy. No one knows why.

Mr. Fairbairn: There is an explanation. In France we may not drink the water. The French, whether children or adults, must drink wine. The Italians are not obliged to drink wine.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. and learned Gentleman always seems to have a capacity for reaching solutions at which learned committees have for many years failed to arrive. I do not know that there is all that much evidence. I defer to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he implies that the water in Italy is better than that in France. However, French wine is better than Italian wine. That is another matter.
I am not sure that longer opening hours for off-licences mean more alcoholism. Consideration of the facts leads me to believe that the alcoholic makes sure that he has access to drink when he wants it. It is a difficult matter. As a Liberal I believe in the right of choice. People should be able to make up their own minds. I reject the kind of unsympathetic repression towards which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) leans. People should have the capacity to make up their own minds on individual and community questions. If a community or the people in a recognisable locality do not want drink, let that be. If they want it 24 hours a day—which was one of the options upon which the Secretary of State poured scorn—so be it. The principle should be what the people in recognisable local areas want to do or have.
This is the choice that I have before me. If I support Sunday opening but the people of my area oppose it, I may impose on my constituents an arrangement which they oppose. There is evidence showing that the proposal is opposed by people in Central and possibly even in North-East Scotland.
The whole argument about drink in Scotland is riddled with cant, hypocrisy and inconsistency. At the end of the day I suspect that whatever solution we produce will have elements of hypocrisy within it and certainly aspects of inconsistency. I do not know whether there is any way round that, but at least we in the House should recognise our own


fallibility. I accept that we have an alcoholism problem that is more severe than is general in Europe, but it is nevertheless accepted that there are no clear solutions.
If the local option solution, which I think would be the best, is not available, a flat opening of public houses on Sunday would impose on communities, some of which I represent, a style of behaviour for which there is no expressed demand.
Reference has not been made to the opinion polls, for example, in the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail. They appear to be the only quantitative evidence of pressure for the change. I have not received any letters saving that the change is desirable. I am aware that the receipt of 230 letters saying that the change must not be made is equally a distortion of reality because it means that people are being pressed. Any genuine pressure would be expressed in what people say and write to me, and so far I have experienced none.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) criticised the kirk for being concerned solely with this issue. My experience in West Lothian is a little different. To their credit the kirk and individual ministers have raised many social issues over the years.
Like other hon. Members, I have received a large number of letters, but perhaps those that worry me most come from publicans. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) skated over this matter all too lightly. I quote from a typical letter which I have received from a publican:
I protest on the grounds that I work 70 to 80 hours a week at present, and I look forward to Sunday as the one day in the week when I am able to enjoy a normal family environment.
Has any assessment been made of the added costs of Sunday opening and the ease with which replacements can be found and the general question of the effect of Sunday opening on the working conditions of publicans and their staff?
I address myself to the Leader of the Liberal Party and claim perhaps in this matter, though not in others, "I am a better devolutionist than thou." For a long time some of us—in the minority—have argued, precisely for the reasons

given by the hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and Inverness, that requirements vary from one part of Scotland to another. Not only would the House of Commons be spared late nights but, far more important, a better solution would be arrived at if this issue—and many others—had been left to the regions, because there are genuine differences between the Western Isles on the one hand and Edinburgh on the other.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Fairbairn: I shall follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) exactly on the point on which he finished.
Scotland has entirely different problems as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said. For instance, in Perthshire there are 217 hotels and 45 pubs. In Rutherglen there is one hotel and there are 22 pubs. There is the same number of people in both areas, so we are dealing with entirely different problems.
I reject all the arguments about whether people would drink more or less, or would become alcoholics or drunks or anything else if the pubs opened on a seventh day in the week. The falsity of that argument is that those who advance it do not understand and may not want to understand that the fact that there is no Sunday opening in Scotland does not mean that they stop drinking for one-seventh of the time. So we have a situation where people drink on a Sunday. The question is whether, in those areas where there appears to be the difficulty that there are not sufficient hotels to allow people to drink, they should he permitted to do so.
I find myself in an extremely difficult position. The Under-Secretary will recall that in Committee I said that I thought that a selective attitude should be allowed and that it should be used to raise the standard of public houses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) talks about hell holes. I am unimpressed by that sort of language. I had great pleasure in drinking in the "Wee Man" behind the High Court, in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend would call that a hell hole but I found it a haven, among the sort of people with whom Labour hon. Members might not think I normally associated.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would my hon. and learned Friend take his daughters there?

Mr. Fairbairn: I would take one 01 my daughters to the "Wee Man" but I could not make her drink. I would not take my other two daughters.
This is a problem that we must face. It is purely an urban situation and exists only in certain areas. It is not a matter of principle because the pubs are open and one can drink on a Sunday anywhere. It is not a matter of alcoholism because I do not think licences have anything to do with that. The simple question is whether it is sensible to make the pubs in Scotland open everywhere. It would be asinine in my constituency. They would have to open, because if one did, all the others would. Nobody wants it in my constituency, or in Ross and Cromarty and many other parts. Do we have to have it everywhere in order to cure a problem somewhere? That is the difficulty in the situation in which we are placed, and the Government's let-out clause is a poor let-out because it says:
A licensing board shall refuse an application made under paragraph 2 above if it is satisfied that the opening and use on a Sunday of the premises to which the application relates would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality, but otherwise shall grant the application.
The one place in which it will not cause a nuisance is my constituency. We do not have pubs in tenements. The pub is miles away from where anyone lives. So the pubs which would be allowed to be open and would get through the licensing board are those in a rural situation. The pubs that would need to be open if there were an urban demand would not get through.
I respect the motivation of the Secretary of State, but he has got it wrong. Pubs in Perthshire, Ross and Cromarty and Inverness-shire would not cause a public nuisance because no one lives near them. Yet the pubs in Pentlands and Central Edinburgh, where there may be a demand and urban justification, will be cut out.
I am compelled to vote for New Clause 1 because in my constituency, as in most other parts of Scotland, the provision in the Standing Committee amendment is unnecessary. We are trying to cure a localised, urban problem in a general way that offends many people

who do not understand what this is all about. The Government's fall-back position would exacerbate the problem rather than cure it. We should not be emotional about this matter. It has nothing to do with alcoholism or whether Sunday is a sacred day.
A blanket requirement that every pub in Scotland must open would cause unnecessary offence to many people. It would be an unsuccessful attempt to cure a narrow requirement.

Mr. Dempsey: I shall not detain the House for long. I have listened to every speech and found the wide-ranging deliberations very interesting, though it is beyond me how some of the theories became involved in this simple problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) will probably soon be chiding me and suggesting that I should declare an interest. I am a lifelong teetotaller, though that does not make me intolerant. I served for 14 years in a licensing court in Lanarkshire before coming to the House. That is why I am a teetotaller. At a recent function, my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) tried to get me to break the pledge and said: "Give Dempsey a double Scotch and I'll pay his fine!"
I shall do my best to hold to my convictions. I have been asked whether I took communion wine and my answer was "No". I had the pleasure of opening licensed premises in my constituency recently and they could not find a drink to suit me. When waiters came round with a tray of concoctions, I asked for a non-sweetened pussyfoot. The waiters looked mesmerised. When I asked one whether he had anything for a teetotaller, he shook his head sadly and said, "Nothing, sir, but respect."
Hon. Members have overlooked the present situation. Hotels are open on Sundays and there are multifarious clubs in all communities. One point which has been overlooked is that pubs are already open on a Sunday. I sat on the Committee which dealt with the Guest Report where it was arranged that if any public house were willing to bring its facilities up-to-date and to provide meals, that licensee could qualify for Sunday opening hours. In my constituency today I have pubs which are


open on Sunday simply because they provide meals and alcohol is ancillary to those meals. That is the golden rule, and when we have regard to the number of facilities which are available one is entitled to ask whether there is a need to extend Sunday opening of pubs. I contend that there is no need at all.
When we told licensees that they could have a Sunday licence if they were willing to spend money on their premises and to provide meals facilities, most of them rebelled against that. Licensees refused to spend money improving those particularly squalid properties in order to provide an environment for the enjoyment of a dram with a meal. It seems wrong that those same individuals, who never spend a single penny improving their properties, should be given the same rights as those who have spent thousands of pounds providing facilities. That point should also be borne in mind by the House.
There is no doubt that the Bill in general provides for the provision of refreshments seven days a week. How my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) can logically argue that the new clause is tantamount to prohibition is beyond me. I have never heard that before.
I am reminded of one licensee who refused to sell females a dram. He was against it because it meant providing toilet facilities for females and he was not willing to do so. We told him that he must give them a dram if they wanted it. He got over the problem by providing them with pails. We tried our best to get licensees to provide basic elementary facilities. Nobody has ever used that as an argument in favour of cutting our drinking, eliminating it and advocating prohibition. I had never heard of that theory until I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian this evening. I would tell him that if the places of which I am thinking are opened on Sunday I have not the slightest doubt that the average woman would not go to such places with her husband. We shall therefore have masculine drinking, which will result in men leaving their families at home. It will mean the interruption of family life, and that is bad enough at present. We have only to watch men going from club to club and notice where the womenfolk

are to realise what is going on. We are duty bound to take that into account.
I belong to the Labour Party. I hope that my hon. Friend will never forget that thousands of people joined our movement in order to achieve temperance in our society. Others joined it—we should not be ashamed about it—because they believed in the sanctity of the Sunday. They joined it because they believed that the Sabbath should be kept holy. I go to church on a Sunday morning. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire reads the lesson. It takes me all my time to understand it.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend does not go to the same church.

Mr. Dempsey: Not the same building, but the same religious persuasion.
We in this party owe much more to Methodism than to Marxism. We must take account of the family day, if nothing else. Considering drinking, especially in the West of Scotland, I have concluded that it is not so much the drinking laws as the drinking habits which need to be adjusted. Without the new clause the problem will be exacerbated. I was amazed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian say that the number of offences connected with drink has decreased. According to a report on the radio the other day, 160,000 people were tried in connection with offences relating to drink in the United Kingdom in the last calendar year.
We all respect one another's opinions, but I hope that the new clause will be approved.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I approach this question from the standpoint of demand in my constituency. With the Bill in prospect, there was a small upsurge, to 23, in the number of letters I received opposing it. But before then I received letters requesting drinking facilities. So this can be judged in different ways. I understand that there is great feeling in Dundee about the absence of facilities for drinking in a civilised manner on a Sunday. I have heard of hotels which are jammed tight on a Sunday, where people who want a drink must queue up. I have not heard such hair-raising stories as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) mentioned, but no


doubt those things occur. Certainly there is a demand in Dundee for an extension of those facilities. There is a shortage of hotels. There are plenty of public houses but the fact that they cannot open on a Sunday causes difficulty.
I am a churchgoer—not perhaps as regular as I might be—but I see no reason against people having a drink. If licensing hours are kept separate from church-going hours, particularly in the morning, I can see no difficulty arising. Many hon. Members will be voting tonight largely on an assessment of how their constituencies will react—

Mr. Buchan: Do not believe it.

Mr. Wilson: It could be true in certain cases. For instance, if constituencies which have a large number of hotels and a small number of public houses turn out to be against the opening of public houses on a Sunday, they may not be greatly affected in practice by the opening of the few public houses in their localities, but the votes which will be cast against Sunday opening could tell heavily in areas which have a shortage of proper hotel accommodation. That matter will condition my vote tonight.
I turn now to the fall-back amendment—Amendment No. 92—which I was considering supporting. However, on study of it, I find certain aspects about which I am not sure. I should like some information from the Minister on the way in which it has been drafted. I draw attention particularly to paragraph 6:
A licensing board shall refuse an application…if it is satisfied that the opening and use on a Sunday of the premises to which the application relates would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality, but otherwise shall grant the application.
These criteria in the fall-back amendment could cause considerable difficulty to licensing boards when they make this decision, particularly in relation to first-time grants where there is no evidence of disturbance. Some licensing boards may use that condition to exercise a general veto against the granting of licences. I know that an appeal may be made to the sheriff and that may take care of the situation, but that provision seems to give considerable discretionary power to the licensing boards.
Will any guidance or help be given to the licensing boards by way of memoranda by the Scottish Office regarding the type of nuisance or difficulty that might be expected to arise to warrant the refusal of a licence?
Secondly, how does one prove that a disturbance or nuisance arises from a given set of premises? One public house and its clientele could be judged on the basis of nuisance or disturbance created by those who frequent another public house. In practice, it could be difficult for a licensing board to take action in circumstances where a Sunday licence has been granted, except where evidence is provided by way of conviction in court during the year showing that the trouble has come from a particular set of premises. I should like the Minister to explain as clearly as possible the practical effect of this fallback amendment.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his clear exposition of the meaning of the separate groups of new clauses and amendments at the outset of the debate. It put the matter in perspective and helped those of us who have been looking at the individual amendments and trying to piece them together to form a coherent picture.

Mr. Buchan: I shall be brief. Indeed, I deliberately waited to hear the views of the main protagonists on both sides of the argument to convince me one way or the other. The arguments of the liberalisers have almost pushed me into supporting New Clause 1, with which I shall deal later.
Certain comments must be made before we finish tonight. I have never been more ashamed of the Scottish Press than over the last few weeks. In the middle of the biggest economic crisis that we have ever faced, one would have thought that the fate of the nation depended entirely on whether we should have Sunday opening for pubs. Furthermore, I regret that so many hon. Members—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh)—should have contributed to that campaign.
I particularly resent that the Press took no trouble to understand the workings of the House, nor did hon. Members who were active in the campaign on one side


or the other make it their business to enlighten the Press. Issue after issue of quality and popular papers implied that there was something wrong, tyrannical despotic and completely unprecedented in the Government putting down an amendment to reverse a decision taken in Committee. That happens frequently, and it is right. I should not tolerate a position where a decision made in Committee was binding on the Chamber of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: To help my hon. Friend's argument, did he see that one paper went so far as to suggest that it was mandatory for all Scottish hon. Members to attend my Adjournment debate on the tartan Army, tartan Navy and tartan Air Force after this debate?

Mr. Buchan: If my hon. Friend is saying that there is a great deal of ignorance about the workings of the House, I agree with him. I deplore that the Press was so wrong and that some hon. Members contributed to that.
The attitude of some hon. Members deteriorated so much that it became sufficient to say "England has it" to create the suggestion that the Scots were deprived. The argument then became based on the attitude that the Government were not allowing us to have what they have in England—as if the English were preventing us from exercising our own liberty. That is an indictment of how we have allowed the position to deteriorate. That is mesmeric nonsense which I deplore.
I hope that we do not make a decision on the basis only of our own constituencies. It is important to consider the effect of all legislation on our constituencies but we should look at the total situation instead of looking at the selfish advantage which we might see for our own areas. That takes a bit of courage, but I hope that hon. Members will exercise it.
I do not accept the argument that the different situation in France and Italy accounts for their lower incidence of alcoholism. If there is an explanation it is because Scots drink more spirits. It is part of our basic culture. We have different drinking problems and more alcoholism because of our long tradition of hard drinking. It was not initiated by

the licensing law as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian suggested.

Mr. Mackintosh: I said that it was encouraged.

Mr. Buchan: I doubt whether it was even particularly encouraged. My hon. Friend should read the paeon of praise on the dark drinking dens of Glasgow where drinking has to be done vertically. That is a long tradition which was not discouraged by the licensing laws. It is difficult to assert the negative—that licensing has not helped—and then to assert that the nature of the licensing laws has contributed to a greater incidence of drunkenness and alcoholism in Scotland. That is not true.
3.0 a.m.
The liberalisers—I must include myself among them—must face up to the fact that if we extend drinking hours there will be more deaths and serious injuries and more alcoholism. [An HON. MEMBER: "And more freedom."] Of course, but there is a great deal of freedom to jump off the top of a skyscraper. The deaths are the price to be paid for the freedom.
A great deal of drinking on a Friday is done by the people who also drink on a Saturday, and if there is drinking on a Sunday they will do a great deal of the drinking then. To that extent there is a greater likelihood of injuries and deaths on the roads and people moving into alcoholism. The liberalisers must face up to this and say that it is the price we must pay—a short-term price, because in the long run the problem will decrease. This is where I begin to have doubts, because I am not sure that an alteration of the licensing laws will change the situation at all.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Of course it will.

Mr. Buchan: A change in social attitudes, housing, the environment and the pubs themselves will alter it. I had hoped that the fall-back position would be much tougher—for example, making it compulsory for those who wished to have a seven-day licence to make a fresh application, with tough criteria for granting that licence. Those who could not meet the criteria would have to stick to a six-day licence. To meet the criteria, applicants would have to have


good pubs, providing snacks and meals and coffee—perhaps a juke box. We had the opportunity to deal with the drinking problem in that way, rather than merely trying by the licensing—

Mr. Robert Hughes: The toughness should not be tacked on to the Sunday question but should concern the state of the pubs as they are now.

Mr. Buchan: I accept that, but I am a realist. We cannot impose criteria of that kind for every pub in Scotland. If we introduced them for seven-day licences that would have a feed-back effect. The argument would be that if a pub were not fit to open on Sunday it was not fit to open for the rest of the week.
I have been put in a quandary. I am one of the great "Don't knows". I have been appalled by the certainty I have encountered on every side in this issue. I am not certain.
I shall support the fall-back position. I hope to see how it can be strengthened in another place so that we may try to deal with the problem as it should be dealt with. It cannot be dealt with only by a change in the licensing laws.

Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: I have sat here throughout the debate and have heard many preambles to speeches containing the words "I shall be brief." I can give the undertaking that I shall be brief, because I know that the House wants to come to a conclusion on the matter.
I must confess that as a member of the Church of Scotland I share many of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I agree that some of us have had representations made to us on the basis that it was known where we would stand. The most honest representation that I have received was from a minister in my constituency who said that he had not detected any pressure for the opening of pubs on Sunday but as a parish minister he would not expect to receive any representations that pubs should be open on a Sunday. I read the rest of that letter with far greater attention than I paid to some others.
We have had a thoroughly good debate this evening and we had a good debate in Committee. Tonight we have had 15 speakers apart from the Front Benchers.

I want to make two preliminary observations before coming to my theme. We sometimes tend to forget, certainly people outside the House do, that alcohol is already available on Sundays in hotels and clubs. I remind those who need reminding of the table on page 34 of the Clayson Report showing that since 1945 the number of clubs in Scotland has risen from 681 to 2,148 in 1972. That is a reflection, but not necessarily the best reflection, of the kind of licensing laws that we have had in Scotland in that time.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and others have said, we have also to remember that there is a curious pattern in Scotland. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) acknowledges that there is a problem. I do not agree with his conclusion that because there are different problems in different parts of Scotland, we should do nothing. In the past we have tended to legislate for the lowest common denominator, but now we want to raise standards and to legislate for the whole of Scotland. We must not run away from them just because the problems in different areas are different.
That is the general background. Drink is available on Sundays but not necessarily in the best places or in the best ways. That is a fact that we have to face. I cannot emphasise too much that the opening of a pub in Scotland on a Sunday will be discretionary.
I do not want to go all over the arguments because they have been made very thoroughly, but I should like to deal with the subject mentioned by everyone who has spoken—alcoholism and the problems of the abuse of drink. No one wants alcoholism to increase. We all want it to reduce. But the same arguments are used to prove different ends. For instance, the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) mentioned international comparisons. I do not find these arguments conclusive one way or the other. Much as I want alcoholism to be reduced, I do not accept all the arguments. I do not believe that in the way I shall vote tonight I shall necessarily have a monopoly of truth.
We have a problem of alcoholism in Scotland and we have a problem of drink abuse. What we have to decide this


evening is whether we are better in dealing with the problem to keep the situation as it is or to try to change it. I come down, as I did in Committee, on the side of the view that, given that it is a bad situation, it is worth trying to change it and to improve attitudes to drink and in that way to improve the present situation.
I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was the architect of the Bill in the form in which it came to the House. He said that it was a balanced Bill, and I respect his view. But I do not believe that any of us has a monopoly of necessarily knowing what is right or best at the end of the day. We have had the Clayson Report and that, too, was balanced.
I believe that when the balance is taken away from that report—and that is what the Government did in their original proposals—a major item in the attempt to liberalise attitudes towards alcohol is also taken away. We run the risk of upsetting the balance of the whole approach of the Clayson Committee.
For my own part, while I respect the arguments put forward by those who oppose Sunday opening, I think there is a certain measure of illogicality in them, and if they are followed to their conclusion that will lead to greater restriction. I believe that it is worth taking the risk—and I admit that there is a risk—of going for a greater degree of liberalisation in order to get civilised attitudes and to improve the situation.
We have seen improvements in Scotland over a number of years. I want to see those improvements carried forward. I have a young family, and for many years I have been working among young people, but I believe that allowing pubs to open on Sunday is right and worthwhile. I hope that it will be endorsed by the House.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The main feature of this debate is the degree of tolerance which has been shown by those who take opposing views. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) that this same tolerance and understanding was not shown in the comments of the Scottish Press, excluding the editorial in yester-

day's Daily Record which did catch the mood of the House of Commons and the people generally.
I shall go right through the debate. I do not believe that anything I say at 3.15 a.m. will change the mind of anyone, but I have the responsibility, with the last word in this debate, to emphasise the points which were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in introducing the new clause. I have the responsibility to point out to hon. Members in all parts of the House that while I accept that alcohol is available in Scotland on Sunday, this debate is about whether we legislate to open a further 4,000 outlets for the sale of alcohol. The House has a clear responsibility to consider the consequences of such a decision.
I was very interested in many of the contributions tonight, particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who was Secretary of State when we started the process of putting together this legislation. I was interested to hear him say that the Church of Scotland, while not agreeing with every aspect of the legislation, commended it as a balanced package. It is a great pity that many of the good things that we have done in this legislation have been submerged in the debate on whether we should open pubs in Scotland on Sunday. In fact, Dr. Clayson said this reform of licensing legislation in Scotland was the best this century. It is a great pity that the Scottish Press did not pick up all the good things that the Bill does instead of concentrating on the issue of Sunday opening.
3.15 a.m.
I was most interested by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). I was tempted to rest my reply on what my hon. Friend said because I felt that his contribution was the most profound of the debate. He was drawing on the evidence submitted to the Select Committee on the problems of alcoholism and the availability of alcohol through these additional retail outlets. No one can ignore what will happen if we increase the availability to the extent suggested.
We are then asked how we can extend evening opening hours from Monday to Saturday yet argue against opening on a Sunday. There is no logic in


licensing. Therefore no one can argue a logical case whether the pubs should be open on a Sunday against a background of the decision to extend weekday opening hours. I hope therefore that no one is casting a vote tonight on the basis of logic, because there is none.
We were asked about the fall-back position. New Clause 1 involves the decision in principle whether public houses should be opened on a Sunday. If it is carried the associated amendments would obviously be carried and the remainder of the grouped amendments would not be moved. If New Clause 1 is not carried we come to the fall-back position, which I know some hon. Members would like explained. We have introduced it because we want to impose on publicans and licence holders an obligation should the House vote for Sunday opening.
Let me clear up one point about the discretionary powers of publicans to open on a Sunday. The present legislation is discretionary in that a public house does not have to open any day of the week that it does not want to open. The Bill does not change that. Any licence holder who applies to open on a Sunday will immediately trigger off the procedure as though it were an application for a new certificate. That means that those with a statutory right of objection as defined in the Bill would have the right of objection under the fall-back procedures. It covers the important question of protection for those in tenement buildings who share a roof with a public house. The publicans would be under an obligation to notify in writing all those adjoining tenants. The collective representatives—we found it difficult to define what a residents' or tenants' association was so we used the term "collective representatives"—or the individual tenants will have a statutory right of objection. Equally, the licensing board will be under an obligation to publish that application from the licence holder to open on a Sunday. All those matters will be triggered off when an application is made for Sunday opening.

Mr. David Steel: When the hon. Gentleman says that it will be treated as a fresh application, does he mean that it will be possible for a publican to apply for Sunday opening and in the course

of having his application reviewed to lose his existing six-day licence?

Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for emphasising the point that I was about to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West complained that the fall-back position is not strong enough. If the licensing board refuses an applicant permission to open on a Sunday, he will not lose his six-day licence. The legal advice we have received is that such a course would not stand up in law.
The two exceptions that are made in the fall-back position, as distinct from the application for a new certificate, is that there will be no requirement to furnish the licensing board with a complete certificate or with the other certificate. That will be in existence in any case.
Our legal advice is that if a licensing board were to withdraw the licence for the whole of the seven days on an application for Sunday opening, the sheriff would be bound to uphold the appeal of the licence holder. It is important to say in terms of our desire to bring public houses in Scotland up to standard that if a publican applies for a licence to open on a Sunday and is refused because it is considered, by virtue of the nature of the premises, or some other reason, that it would cause a public nuisance, it goes without saying that the licence holder would be under notice to get his premises brought up to standard. If he did not do so, I imagine that at the next quarterly meeting of the licensing board much more serious action would be taken. All the provisions that will be triggered off by the mere fact that applicants have to apply to open on a Sunday are contained in the application for a new certification, with the exceptions that I have defined.
The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said that they are very poor fall-back provisions. I do not accept that, but I think that the House will have gathered from the tone of my voice that I accept that they are a poor second best from my point of view—and I speak personally. I have always been against the opening of public houses on a Sunday. I have been reinforced in my view in the past two years, having done the job that


I have been doing in Government and having seen the effects of crime related to alcohol.
In 1974 there were approximately 19,000 people committed to Scottish prisons, and 9,000 of them were committed for crimes related to alcohol. I do not hold a monopoly of concern, but I share the concern of Opposition Members and Members from all parts of the House. I could not bring myself to turn a blind eye to the effects of alcohol that I have seen. I was always opposed to Sunday opening, and in the past two years my views have been reinforced.
I said at the beginning that I was not so naive as to deceive myself into the belief that I could change the views of those whose minds are made up. Therefore, I shall not attempt to do so. There have been many important decisions made while Scotland slept, and we are just about to make another. I trust that the decision that the House makes will be one in favour of the new clause and that the Bill will be restored to its original position.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 55.

[For Division List No. 285 see col. 613]

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

OCCASIONAL PERMISSIONS

'(1) A licensing board may grant an occasional permission to a person representing a voluntary organisation or a branch of a voluntary organisation authorising him to sell alcoholic liquor during such hours and on such day as the board may determine, in the course of catering for an event, arising from or related to the activities of the organisation, taking place outwith licensed premises.

(2) Not more than four occasional permissions may be granted in any one year on behalf of the same voluntary organisation or the same branch of a voluntary organisation.

(3) In granting an occasional permission under this section, which shall be in writing the licensing board may impose such conditions as it thinks fit including a condition as to the type of alcoholic liquor which may be sold under the permission, and if the person to whom the permission is granted contravenes such a condition he shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) The provisions of section 68 of this Act shall apply to any premises or place in respect of which an occasional permission is granted as they apply to licensed premises, with the substitution of references to the holder of the permission for the references to the holder of a licence.

(5) The provisions of section 85 of this Act shall apply to any premises or place in respect of which an occasional permission is granted as they apply to premises in respect of which a licence (other than an off-sale licence) is in force.

(6) The person to whom an occasional permission is granted shall ensure that the provisions of this Act or any byelaws or regulations made thereunder relating to the conduct of licensed premises are observed in the premises or place in respect of which the permission was granted as if he were the holder of a public house licence, and if he contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this subsection if he proves that he used due diligence to prevent the occurrence of the offence.

(7) Subsections (7) to (9) of section 35 of this Act shall apply in relation to applications for occasional permissions as they apply in relation to applications for occasional licences.'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 36 and 96.

Mr. Ewing: New Clause 2 revises the new subsection (11) added to Clause 35 in Committee. The new subsection allows a licensing board to grant an occasional licence to an individual representing a bona fide organisation. The clause amends and extends this provision by adjusting it to the language of the Bill. Amendment No. 36 removes subsection (11) of Clause 35 and Amendment No. 96 provides penalties for offences under New Clause 2.
Subsection (11) of Clause 35 was added in Committee after a Division on an Opposition amendment designed to give effect to a Clayson recommendation that a licensing board should have power to grant not more than four occasional licences a year to an individual representing a bona fide organisation authorising the sale of liquor at a particular function on a specified day. Clayson had in mind small voluntary organisations


with a social or sporting purpose whose concern was to operate a bar for their own enjoyment and incidental profit on a few brief occasions during the year. We accept that there is a case for such occasional authorities for organisations and do not wish to challenge the principle of subsection (11).
The purpose of the clause is to replace subsection (11) with a separate clause revised in line with the terms of the rest of the Bill. A separate clause seemed desirable because the remainder of Clause 35 deals with the grant of an occasional licence to someone who already holds a licence. Likewise, a separate name for the authority conferred seemed to be desirable and "occasional permission" is suggested.
Subsection (1) empowers a licensing board to grant an occasional permission to a person representing a voluntary organisation or a branch of a voluntary organisation authorising him to sell alcoholic liquor on a specified day and at a specified time in the course of catering for a function outside licensed premises.
Subsection (2) restricts the grant to not more than four occasional permissions a year for any one organisation or branch.
Subsection (3) empowers a licensing board to attach such conditions as it thinks fit, including a condition as to the type of liquor that may be sold, to an occasional permission, which shall be in writing, and makes breach of a condition an offence.
Subsection (4) applies the provisions of Clause 68, dealing with the protection of young persons, to the holder of an occasional permission and the premises for which it is granted, as if they were respectively a licence-holder and licensed premises.
Subsection (5) applies the provisions of Clause 85.
Subsection (6) requires the holder of an occasional permission to ensure that the provisions of the Bill relating to conduct of licensed premises are observed in the premises for which the permission is granted as if he were the holder of a public house licence.
Subsection (7) applies the procedural provisions in subsections (7) to (9) of Clause 35 for applications for occasional

licences to applications for occasional permissions.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 96 are consequential to New Clause 2. Their effect is to remove subsection (11) of Clause 35, which is to be replaced by New Clause 2, and to provide maximum penalties of £100 for the two offences created by the clause.
The maximum penalty for breach of a condition of an occasional permission is set at the same figure of £100 as the maximum penalty for breach of a condition of an occasional licence under Clause 35 and breach of a condition of grant of an extension of permitted hours under Clause 64. The maximum penalty for failing to ensure good conduct at the function for which the occasional permission has been granted has been set at the higher of the two maximum penalties—£100 and £50—provided for similar offences on the part of a licence holder. This emphasises the responsibility placed on the person seeking an occasional permission.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am grateful to the Minister for this happy solution to an important debate on a small issue in Committee. We always accepted that our subsection (2) might not have been correctly drafted. The conclusion which the Minister reached on the subsection in favour of the new draft is much the best because it is correctly redrafted. We are grateful to the hon. Member for taking the trouble to do this. I welcome the addition to the Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope the Minister will answer a few questions on this important new clause because it involves a major change in principle. Up to the present it has been possible for organisations to hold a function and to get a licence only if they had an existing licence holder. That is now being done away with and the organisation itself can organise a bar and get the profit.
Obviously, as we have seen from the previous law on licensing there is a danger of escalation, and with this new clause as drafted there is a danger that it might be subject to abuse. The abuse I can see is the reference to an organisation or branch of an organisation. We debated a great deal in Committee the drinking habits of Dumfries Conservatives because Dumfries is one of the most powerful and


strong associations in the country. I am aware that it has a number of branches. The same would probably apply to Dumfries Rugby Club. I wonder whether it would be possible for each branch of each organisation to get four occasional permissions a year, even though the cash proceeds were going to the same local organisation. Is it possible, in an organisation having five or six branches, for each to hold such a function, to have an occasional licence and devote the proceeds to the funds of the organisation through the different branches?
The Secretary of State is well aware of the special problem which arose where each branch had special licences. It was a way round the situation. Is there any difficulty for an organisation in establishing a new branch every time it runs out of special permissions?
3.45 a.m.
The Minister may say that licensing boards will keep a close watch on the situation, but would it be possible for an organisation to behave as I have suggested and to have occasional permissions virtually every week? Will there be a limit on the number of occasional licences which can be obtained by any organisation in a year?
We shall be discussing later Government Amendment No. 87 which reduces from five years to three years the waiting time for existing "dry" or limitation areas. My attitude to intervening amendments will depend upon whether the Government intend to go ahead with that amendment. How would such an amendment affect the current situation? May we also be told how occasional licences apply to existing "dry" licences?
A similar amendment to No. 87 was tabled in Committee, but after I had put forward some strong arguments, my hon. Friends decided not to proceed with it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for his kind words and for his acknowledgment that we have produced a clear solution to the problem that he raised in Committee.
I can tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that occasional permissions are not related to licences. They will be given to people

who are not licence holders but are representatives of bona fide organisations. The number of permissions is limited to not more than four a year and the conditions are tightly drawn to ensure that the restrictions are complied with.

Mr. McCartney: Could my hon. Friend clarify the position still further? In talking about an organisation, do we mean organisations in the constituent sense in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) referred to them, irrespective of the number of constituent elements in the organisation?

Mr. Ewing: The wording was deliberately chosen to cover the branches of organisations.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If a branch gets four permissions and needs another four, does it not just have to set up another branch? Will it not also be able to get yet another four by setting up a third branch?

Mr. Ewing: It will be for the board to decide whether conditions are being abused.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

LICENSING BOARDS

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 3, after 'council', insert
'or of justices of the peace appointed by the council'.
This is an important amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to make some concession.
At present we have a situation where licensing courts in Scotland are composed primarily of councillors and justices of the peace. There are several advantages in having justices of the peace as well as councillors. There is always some merit in having people who are net primarily answerable to electors. That is an important factor if one has to make decisions of a semi-judicial nature whether a licence should be granted.
In addition, one of the major and important advantages of having justices of the peace is that it helps achieve a


quorum in the licensing court. Any hon. Member who has experience of local government, particularly in Glasgow, and in some other areas as well, will accept that one of the major problems we have at present is getting a quorum for a licensing court. That quorum is often far below the actual membership of the licensing court, as the Minister will be aware.
At present it seems that we are proposing to change over to elected councillors only. One of the problems is that councillors are extremely busy people and spend a great deal of their time attending council meetings and committees and so on. I would suggest that it would be difficult in a city area for the councillors to spare the additional time to attend the licensing board or licensing court. It must also be accepted that the problem will be greater in country areas. While in the Glasgow District Council meetings are held every single day, I am afraid that in some country areas it is the normal parctice to have meetings perhaps once a week or once a fortnight and that often involves long journeys on the part of councillors.
If we are to have a situation where people have to travel 30, 40 or 50 miles to go to a council meeting of either a regional or district council, and there are some people who are members of both, it will impose a great burden on those people if they also have to attend meetings of the licensing board.
The Minister has said that one of the reasons why the Bill has been introduced is to make the procedure more efficient and ensure that injustice is rooted out. I am scared that if we go ahead on the basis of appointing councillors to these boards, the work of the boards will be frustrated simply because it will not be possible to get sufficient councillors to attend the meetings. I hope that the Minister has made some inquiries into this, and that he can give me some indication of the experience of licensing courts in particular areas and the difficulty of getting a quorum.
In my own area there have been many instances when frantic telephone calls have been made to councillors at their businesses and cars have had to be sent simply because arrangements have been made for a very long agenda considering

applications for licences and there simply were not sufficient members of the licensing court available.
I suggest that this problem could be overcome by having justices of the peace on the boards—because they are often people who are used to public work—who have perhaps been councillors for many years and have played a great part in public service. In my own area we have two justices of the peace who live not far from me. One of them was a councillor in Glasgow for some time and the other unsuccessfully stood for the council on several occasions. They are people who have not only had experience of public work but are anxious to do some public work. In those circumstances they are ideal people to serve on the licensing board and to do a very good job.
It is difficult to decide what should be the proper balance and whether we should have a 50-50 ratio or a two to one ratio or a ratio of three to one. I would accept that there may well be merit in saying that the majority of the licensing boards should consist of councillors and a smaller number of justices of the peace. A balance of three to two or two to one would perhaps be appropriate.
Can the Bill as drafted cope with the situation when a quorum is not available? It seems to me that nothing can be done without the amendment. A great deal of unnecessary expenditure will be incurred when licensing boards meet, as is the case now with licensing courts. The applicant will have his expensive professional advisers. Many objectors have to take a day off work and travel, often considerable distances. Nothing is more likely to destroy local democracy than objectors having to turn up time after time because a quorum cannot be maintained. The Minister may say that that will not happen, but it happens now, even with justices of the peace on the licensing courts.
Government Amendment No. 87 will create great additional pressure on the boards. According to the Clayson Report, a small number of areas in Scotland are "dry". Amendment No. 87 was a great shock to me, since it proposes within three years to abolish "dry" areas and to create a gold rush of prospective publicans. Many local people will want to object. Is the Minister satisfied that the boards will


have enough members to provide the necessary facilities? If the period were five years, the teething troubles might be overcome, but three years is too short.
I thought at first that this amendment and others in my name would not be necessary, but the implications of Amendment No. 87 convince me that they are important, particularly for parts of Glasgow and other "dry" areas. I hope that the Government will admit their error. Without the amendment, nothing can be done if there is not a quorum of elected councillors.
4.0 a.m.
There is no need for me to tell the House of Commons at this hour of the morning about the growing volume of work that councillors have to do. One of the surprises of local government reorganisation has been the number of hours that councillors have to put in. Re-organisation has involved councillors in doing more work of a kind that they did not have to undertake under the previous set-up.
There is a danger that the licensing board system will creak at the seams because it will not be possible regularly to get a quorum. This difficulty could be overcome if we avoided putting undue pressure on the boards early in their existence. I suggest a five-year spell for them to get over the initial difficulties. I am sure that they will be able to cope with their normal work. However, if we put an extra burden on them by having the 16 dry areas coming in within three years, we shall create an intolerable situation.
I hope that the Minister, if he cannot accept my amendment, will accept the justice of the argument—that, if he is prepared to take a gamble, we must remove any special problems which may make the work of the licensing boards more difficult.
The Minister, in a very good speech, suggested that we take a gamble on Sunday licensing. We know that that decision was taken by a majority of the House, but some Members are still apprehensive about it. I suggest that the Minister is taking another gamble by saying that we should have only councillors on the licensing boards. That gamble could result in frustration and time wasting and objectors and applicants coming to meetings which will not take place.
If, on the other hand, the Minister were prepared to say "I will have another think about Government Amendment No. 87, perhaps between now and when the Bill goes to the House of Lords" there would be a good argument for saying "We shall give the new licensing boards a chance by having only councillors on them." Unless the Government is prepared to remove the special problem that could arise in three years from now, there will be a need to strengthen the boards by having on them justices of the peace as well as councillors.
I hope that I have convinced the Minister that we need Amendment No. 2 unless the Government are prepared to reconsider their astonishing Amendment No. 87 between now and when the Bill goes to the other place.

Mr. Millan: I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment. This is a matter of principle which was recommended by Clayson and was fully debated in Committee. The principle that we adopted was that members of licensing boards should be local councillors.
If there is a problem in any area in finding a sufficient number of people for a licensing board meeting, that should be dealt with by having the arrangements for a quorum properly expressed in the Bill. Later amendments have been tabled to deal with the quorum.
The Government take the realistic view that a quorum should be effective. That is the way to deal with any difficulties about getting sufficient people to run a meeting of the board. We do not think that we should go back on the established principle, which was fully considered, that it is appropriate, in matters of local importance of this kind that the members of the licensing board should be local councillors. To add justices of the peace would be to offend that principle, and to have those justices of the peace appointed by the local authority. as is suggested in the amendment, would not make sense.
For those reasons. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am not convinced by the Secretary of State's argument. He did not deal with my second point at all.


I suggested two alternatives. There must either be a reserve of justices of the peace —and I do not suggest that we pack the boards with JPs—or the Minister must be prepared to accept a quite intolerable situation in three years time. At that stage a number of "dry" areas—and there are a number of them—will put in their licence applications. There is a terrific difference between the situation in "dry" areas and that in "wet" areas where the licensing boards just deal with applications as they come in one by one, quarter by quarter at an even rate. But if in three years we shove on top of that an extra work load, special problems will be created.
Would it not be wise—and the Secretary of State accepted my argument because he deliberately avoided answering it—if the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the problem? He need not accept Amendment No. 2 but he should reconsider moving Amendment No. 87. If he did that it would not be necessary for me to spend time talking on the other amendments in my name. I hope that the Secretary of State will make a small concession.
I asked what will happen if the licensing boards fail to get a quorum and what is the procedure for dealing with that but I received no answer. The Bill does not safeguard that position. What could be done if a quorum were not found three weeks in a row? The answer appears to be "Nothing at all".
If the Secretary of State cannot accept Amendment No. 2, will he answer two specific questions? First, what is the fall-back position if there are repeated failures to achieve a quorum? Secondly, does he not accept that many of the teething troubles would be removed if he reconsidered the provisions in amendment No. 87?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 51.

[For Division List No. 286 see col. 613.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
'( ) Where a district or islands area is divided into licensing divisions, then unless the

Secretary of State otherwise directs, not less than one third of the members of the licensing board for a licensing division shall be councillors for a ward or electoral division within the area of the licensing division'.
This amendment meets a commitment we gave in Committee. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

DISQUALIFICATION OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. in page 3, line 19, leave out 'or tenant' and insert 'tenant or subtenant'.
Once again, this is an amendment which fulfils an undertaking given in Committee. It would disqualify a member of a licensing board from acting in the granting of a licence to a premises in which he is a subtenant.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

MEETINGS OF LICENSING BOARDS

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'six' and insert 'eight'.
This amendment meets a commitment given in Committee to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I hope that it meets with his approval.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister answer a few questions on this amendment, which substitutes "eight" for "six"? This means that the clause will now read:
shall hold a meeting in January, March, June and October of each year beginning on a date in each such month fixed by the licensing board at least eight weeks prior to the meeting.
What will be the procedure in the event of one of the regular meetings and the one which succeeds it not taking place because it is not possible to get a quorum? How can the board keep to the eight-week notice period if the regular quarterly meeting cannot be held on the appointed day, or the week after or the week after that, because the board cannot arrange a quorum? This will arise in a limited number of areas if the Government will not be flexible and accept a


later amendment which is on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Ewing: As the hon. Member knows, this was discussed at length in Committee. It has nothing to do with the size of the quorum. We gave a commitment that we would delete six weeks and insert eight. We have done that, and it is acceptable to the hon. Member for Fife, East and his hon. Friends, as I understand it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF LICENSING BOARDS

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 4, line 34, at end insert—
'(gi) making a decision on an application for Sunday opening under Part I of Schedule (Sunday opening of premises in respect of which a public house licence or refreshment licence is or will be in force and Sunday restriction orders relating to licensed premises) to this Act;
(gii) making a decision as regards a Sunday restriction order or the revocation of such an order under Part II of Schedule (Sunday opening of premises in respect of which a public house licence or refreshment licence is or will be in force and Sunday restriction orders relating to licensed premises) to this Act;'.—[Mr. Milian.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 37, after '(3)', insert—
'A licensing board may fix its own quorum which shall not be less than'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 38, leave out shall be a quorum'.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not wish to speak at length on Amendment No. 7 because it is a minor drafting improvement to the clause. Government Amendment No. 8, however, reverses a decision taken by the Committee that a quorum for a meeting of a board should be a minimum of five rather than three. I think it is unfortunate that the Government have not accepted the Committee's decision because it provided an important safeguard in many areas of Scotland where the size of a licensing board is likely to be rather small. Important decisions may be taken by only three people attending the meeting.
If the Government amendment is accepted, a decision can be carried out by two votes to one removing a person's livelihood or approving a highly controversial licence. Clearly this is sometimes necessary with a very narrow majority, but it is at least acceptable where considerable numbers of members make the decision. Where only three persons might be present, with two in favour of a particular proposition which might have serious consequences and one against, the applicant or objector would have good grounds for feeling genuinely aggrieved, and this would be of great importance. It would be particularly significant in rural areas, which will have smaller licensing boards.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I ask the Opposition to withdraw their Amendment No. 7 and not to press Amendment No. 9; otherwise I must ask the House to reject them. I ask the House to agree to Government Amendment No. 8.
As I explained in Committee, licensing courts have been taking decisions in Scotland for many years on a quorum of two, and the Bill provided, before the amendment was made in Committee, that there should be a quorum of three in the new licensing boards. Since the decision of the Committee to raise the figure from three to five, we have con-suited the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the implications for local authorities of the increase, which puts the minimum quorum at the same level as the minimum number of members of a licensing board in terms of Clause 1(4). Of 14 chief executives of smaller authorities invited to comment by the convention, 11 would prefer to have a minimum quorum of three and a minimum membership of seven.
The convention made the point that an increase to seven in the membership of a licensing board could adversely affect the ability of councils with a small membership to constitute licensing boards, For example, Skye and Lochalsh District Council has a membership of 10, of whom two are disqualified from membership of licensing boards by virtue of being licence-holders. This district council would have difficulties in providing a minimum membership of seven.
The convention also consulted the chief executives of three district councils the


memberships of which range from 20 to 29 and which operate licensing divisions. Their view is that, if larger minimum numbers are approved for board membership and the quorum, this could lead to centralisation of licensing functions in their districts and abolition of the licensing divisions. This would deprive these authorities of the option to create divisions.
The overall view of the convention is, on balance, to favour a minimum quorum of three and a minimum membership of five. In the light of this view my amendment would restore the minimum quorum to three, leaving the minimum membership at five as in Clause 1(4). In commending this amendment to the House, I am conscious that it may disappoint the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) who, in moving his successful amendment in Committee expressed his concern that a quorum of three was too small for a licensing board in a rural area. I remind him that three is an increase of 50 per cent. over the present minimum of two.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am disappointed that in this as in other cases the Government have changed their minds on certain amendments since the Committee stage. It was a happy and harmonious Committee with no accusations of bad faith. It is unfortunate that at this late stage, in the case of this amendment and a later one, the situation would appear to have arisen that there is bad faith by the Government.
I wish to ask one or two brief questions that arise from Government Amendment No. 8. If the quorum is to be three instead of five, does that figure apply to all the deliberations of the licensing board, only to the beginning of its meeting or to times when decisions are made? If the meeting of a board lasted for 45 minutes or two hours, would it be adequate to have a quorum of three at the beginning and a quorum of three when votes took place, or would it be necessary to have a quorum of three all the time?
4.30 a.m.
As it is an important change of principle to reduce the quorum from five to three, whose obligation is it to declare whether a quorum is present? If the number is to be reduced from five to

three, is it the duty of the clerk to the board to draw the attention of members present to the fact that a quorum is not present, or is it his duty to do so only if one of those appearing before the board brings it to his attention?
If we accept the amendment and reduce the quorum to three, will that mean that a licensing board's proceedings cannot continue unless there are three members of the board present at all times between decisions, while decisions are being considered and after they have been taken? It is important that we should have an assurance that three members will be present at all times when matters are being considered and decisions taken by the licensing board if we are to take this major step.
If there are to be three members present all the time, whose duty will it be to draw the clerk's attention to this provision? Did the Minister decide to introduce the amendment primarily because he believed that there would be a problem in providing five members because of the special and onerous duties of councillors and the decision to remove justices of the peace from membership of the boards? Bearing in mind the excellent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in Committee, is it the Minister's argument that three should be accepted instead of five because it is more efficient or more practical?
Did the Minister table the amendment because it was also his intention to introduce Amendment No. 87 and because he appreciated that there would be a problem of having regular meetings for some licensing boards in certain areas in three years' time? I think it would help the House to consider whether this is a good or bad amendment if we knew the reason for the Minister having tabled it. I listened to his arguments carefully and I was not entirely convinced by them. It seems that there must have been a special reason for the Government to have tabled the amendment, and I should like to know whether it was that they decided out of the blue to table a later amendment, which happens to be No. 87.

Mr. Harry Ewing: A quorum is a quorum. If the quorum is lost, the meeting is lost. I tabled the amendment because of the great difficulties involved


for the small local authorities. We shall discuss Amendment No. 87 when we come to it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 4, line 38, leave out "five" and insert "three".—[Mr. Millan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 23.

[For Division List No. 287 see col. 615.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 4, leave out "(g)" and insert "(gii)".

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This amendment falls within the second group, which was debated with New Clause 1. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, explain whether acceptance of the amendment will preclude a debate on Amendment No. 49, which is basically the referendum amendment in the third grouping? I believe that it should be possible to vote on but not to debate Amendment No. 49 even if we accept Amendment No. 10. This affects the position of anyone who wants to vote on Amendment No. 10. I was advised by the Clerks that it would be possible to vote on Amendment No. 49 but not on Amendment No. 46.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I see it, Amendment No. 49 fell with Amendment No. 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

WITNESSES

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 31, leave out Clause 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 86 and 94.

Mr. Millan: The effect of the amendment would be to take away the power of a licensing board to cite and examine witnesses. We undertook to look at this in Committee. Having done so, we find

that the power is not necessary and that it would be better for it to be removed. It is rarely used.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

CLERK OF LICENSING BOARDS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 9, at end insert
'and the clerk of a licensing board shall be an advocate or a solicitor'.
This amendment is in response to a point made in Committee and requires the clerk of a licensing board to be legally qualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 16, leave out 'a licensing' and insert 'that'.
The amendment slightly restricts the prohibition on the clerk of a licensing board who wishes to act as a solicitor in proceedings before licensing boards. Again, it is a point raised in Committee which is now taken care of.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

APPLICATION FOR LICENCE

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 33. at end insert—
'( ) In the case of an application for the grant or provision grant of a new licence, the applicant shall, not later than three weeks before the first day of the meeting of the board at which the application is to be considered, give notice in writing of the application to every occupier of premises situated in the same building as the premises to which the application relates'.
This is an important amendment which meets the commitment given in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that individual written notices of an application for a licence for premises in tenement property should be sent to occupiers of the tenement. The amendment places on obligation on the applicant to inform the individual tenants in writing of the application for a licence. I hope that the wording meets the requirements of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The amendment meets the precise points expressed in Committee. It gives to residents and owners in property adjacent to public houses a right which will be very much appreciated. It should have been given long ago. I am glad that the Government took this opportunity to put the matter right in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—
'(6) On receipt of an application of a kind referred to in subsection (5) above, and until the first day of the meeting of the board at which the application is to be considered, the clerk of a licensing board shall make the application, together with the documents lodged therewith, available for inspection by members of the public during normal office hours'.
The amendment seeks to improve the facilities available to the public to note the information which might be useful to them in deciding whether to oppose or accept an application which has been made. The amendment makes available far more information than the knowledge statutorily required under the Bill in its present form, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: We recognise the usefulness of this amendment and we are prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

FURTHER APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENCE WHERE PREVIOUS APPLICATION REFUSED

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 39, at end insert
or unless there has been a material change in circumstances since the date of the refusal of the first-mentioned application'.
I am so overwhelmed by the Minister's generosity on the last amendment that I hope it will be repeated on this one It relates to a situation in which a licensing board has refused an application. The Bill states that no subsequent application may be made within a period of two years. In general I find that acceptable, but we think that there should be a qualification of the absolute bar on a subsequent application within two years.
It would seem reasonable that if a material change of circumstances had occurred an applicant should at least be entitled to present a new case explaining the change of circumstances to the licensing board, so that it may reconsider the situation. There would be no obligation for it to change its decision, but if there has been a great material change in circumstances, notwithstanding that the two-year period has not elapsed, it is not unreasonable to allow the board to reconsider the matter and to come to an appropriate decision. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: One of the things not affected by inflation is my generosity, but I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. The debate is similar to the one we had in Committee. There are two issues. One relates to the applicant for the licence and the other to the objector. I would be unfair to subject the objector to a continual process of going back to the licensing board. The board has the flexibility to reconsider an application within the two-year period if a change emerges. I am bound to adhere to the Committee's decision not to accept this proposal.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17

OBJECTIONS IN RELATION TO APPLICATIONS

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 14, after relates', insert
or any organisation which in the opinion of the Board represents such persons'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 18, at end insert
or, where there is no community council, a community or residents association which, in the opinion of the licensing board, represents a significant body of opinion among persons residing in the neighbourhood of the premises'.

Mr. Ewing: Amendment No. 19 meets a point made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). I explained earlier this morning that we had had a difficulty in defining a residents' or tenants' association, and we decided to use the words in this amendment.
Amendment No. 20 provides that, where there is no community council for the area in which the premises are situated, a right of objection will be conferred on a community or a residents' association which, in the opinion of the board, represents a significant body of opinion among persons residing in the neighbourhood of the premises to which the application relates.
Amendment No. 19 has the important effect of adding to the list of competent objectors any organisation which in the opinion of the board, represents persons owning or occupying property in the neighbourhood of the premises to which the application relates. In practice, it will most likely be a residents' or tenants' association, but any organisation which can satisfy the board that it represents such persons will be allowed to lodge an objection to the granting, renewal or permanent transfer of the licence.
Amendment No. 20 seems unnecessary in view of our important amendment which affects the rights of the individual.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the Government amendment and am prepared to accept it and not press Amendment No. 20. 1 pay tribute to the debate initiated in Committee by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), whose representations have been met in Amendment No. 19.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I welcome the Government amendment. It is as comprehensive as we could have hoped for and recognises that it is important to strengthen the rights of objection for people neighbouring public houses—particularly in the light of our earlier vote on Sunday opening. The Government amendment entirely meets the points raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No, 21. in page 11, line 17, leave out 'practicable' and insert 'possible'.
This amendment covers an important issue. Clause 17 deals with objections to licences and gives powers to chief constables to lodge objections at any time before the hearing of an application. In such cases the chief constable shall. where practicable,

cause his objection to be intimated to the applicant before the hearing.
I am concerned about the possible interpretation of the word "practicable". I do not suggest that chief constables would act irresponsibly, but the use of "practicable" leaves a slightly larger loophole for objections not to he intimated to the applicant. If "possible" is included, the test will be easier and so, too, will appeals to the sheriff court on the ground that a chief constable had not carried out his duty. This is not an amendment on which I would stick, but it seems to tighten up the Bill.

Mr. Millan: I appreciate the reasons for the amendment and the way in which it was moved. This matter was discussed in Committee and we have considered it in detail since, but my advice is that the inclusion of "possible" would take us too far in the opposite direction and might impose unreasonable obligations on chief constables. The term "practicable" means that every effort will be made to carry out the functions imposed in the Bill. Anyone who did not try to do that would be in default.
The matter which concerned the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is covered by the wording of the clause, and "practicable" is the more usual word.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18

GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL OF APPLICATION

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 108, in page 12, line 13, at end insert—
'(e) that an objection to the granting of a licence has been lodged by the district or islands council'.
Clause 18 contains four grounds which must be satisfied before a licence can be granted. This means that the discretion which the licensing court previously enjoyed will have gone. I should explain that this arises out of a case in Stornoway a few years ago where the proprietor of a new hotel announced that he intended to open on Sunday, and this


caused great offence in the community. There was talk of a veto poll being oragnised, but had it been successful all the licences would have been at risk. It was therefore decided not to take the chance of cancelling all the licences in the burgh of Stornoway at that time.
The amendment would meet the local viewpoint to some extent in that it applies only to single applications and would not have a blanket effect.

Mr. Millan: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's explanation contained an important inaccuracy. Clause 18 gives ground for refusal. If one were to add the particular words contained in the amendment, the mere fact that a district council had objected to the granting of a licence would automatically mean the refusal of the licence. That is absolutely antithetical to the arrangements we are providing in the Bill.
The local authority has a certain role, before the licensing board comes into play, in respect of the suitability of the premises and so on. However, to say that it is the end of the matter once a local authority has decided that it cannot grant a licence is taking things too far. The Bill contains a procedure for objections, but I do not think I need explain it at this late hour. We cannot simply write in an automatic power of refusal by the local authority. That would be taking the matter out of the hands of the licensing board and putting it into the hands of local authority decision. That cannot be right in the context of the Bill.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation and I see the substance of what he says. However, since the veto poll is bound to disappear eventually, some resort should be granted to a community which feels strongly about a particular licence.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 50.

[For Division List No. 288 see col. 615.)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 20

CANVASSING

Mr. Munro: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 13, line 19, after 'hours', insert
'or any objector who is a licence-holder'.
I am a little disappointed that there is no Government amendment put down to this clause. I appreciate that the Minister did not give any commitment in the assurances he gave to look at this matter again, but we feel strongly about canvassing by objectors. We agree that there should be no canvassing by applicants for licences, but we also feel that objectors should be in the same position.
5.15 a.m.
The Minister said that an applicant had a financial interest and that an objector had an environmental interest, and that he could see a subtle distinction between the two. Objectors could object on financial grounds because their business or interest was affected. The Minister should have given way on this issue after having considered it. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment, he should at least look at it once more and talk to his colleagues in the other place about the possibility of moving a similar amendment later. There is a strong case for putting objectors to an application in exactly the same position as applicants.

Mr. Harry Ewing: We gave serious consideration to this matter and came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to single out one class of objector—namely, licence-holders—for prosecution for canvassing. Although we have sympathy with the argument, on balance we feel that it would be wrong to isolate a licence-holder by charging him with the offence. If a licence-holder were found to be canvassing against the application of another licence-holder, the suitability of that person to hold a licence under Clause 18 would be for the board to decide. For those balanced reasons, we ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Munro: I note what the Minister has said. I cannot say that I agree with him, but in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

GRANT OF LICENCE IN FORM OTHER THAN THAT APPLIED FOR

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 18, line 36, leave out Clause 29.
In Committee hon. Members asked whether it was sensible to retain this clause, which allows the board to grant licences of a type other than that which is applied for. We do not think that there is any reason for the clause and we would like it to be deleted.

Mr. David Steel: I do not understand why the Government wish to drop the clause. The Secretary of State has not explained the reason for doing so.

Mr. Millan: No one can see the point of the clause. The local authorities believe that it will be of no use. I suppose that it was put in the Bill because it was copied from some other Bill, that the provision was in the previous Bill because it was copied from another Bill, and so on.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31

ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR WHICH MAY BE SOLD UNDER LICENCE

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 19, leave out lines 22 and 23.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 95.

Mr. Harry Ewing: These amendments meet the points made in Committee by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind). I hope that they meet the view which he expressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 19, line 26, leave out
'or spirits, wine and made-wine'.

No. 29, in page 19, line 28, leave out
or, as the case may be, spirits, wine or made-wine '.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 33

SUSPENSION OF LICENCE ON RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 20, line 31, leave out licensed 'premises' and insert
'vicinity of the licensed premises on the part of persons frequenting those premises'.
The amendment would allow a licensing board, in considering the suspension of a licence after a complaint, to have regard to misconduct in the vicinity of the licensed premises on the part of customers of these premises.
In Committee we had a lengthy debate about the matters to which a licensing board could have regard in considering the suspension of a licence on receipt of a complaint from a neighbouring owner or occupier, a community council, a church or the chief constable. In the clause as originally drafted, these matters where any misconduct by the licence-holder and any misconduct occurring in, or in the vicinity of, the licensed premises. An Opposition amendment to delete the words
'or in the vicinity of'
was carried, thus preventing a licensing board from taking into account misconduct in the vicinity of licensed premises in considering the grounds for suspending a licence.
The debate in Committee was to some extent, I suspect, based on a misunderstanding of the relationship of subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) sets out the grounds on which suspension may be ordered; subsection (3) sets out matters to which the board may have regard in considering a complaint. It follows that only matters relevant to the grounds in subsection (2) could be had regard to under subsection (3).
In moving the amendment in Committee which removed the original wording of subsection (3), the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said:
I feel that subsection (3)(b) is too widely drawn and is putting the licensee in an invidious position in that he is virtually having to be answerable for misconduct of one sort or another which may have no relationship to his own conduct of his own premises and what may be going on in his own premises."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15th June 1976; c. 360.]


We have tried to meet that criticism by making the misconduct to which regard may be had misconduct on the part of persons frequenting the premises. This is clearly conduct related to the premises, and I hope that this avoids the difficulties to which the hon. Member drew attention in Committee.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the fact that the Government, although they have not accepted the amendment we made in Committee, have not sought to restore the exact original wording. They have tried to meet our point in part, but I still have certain reservations. I understand the difference between subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) is obviously vital to the licence-holder. Subsection (3) is not of such direct significance, although it has a certain importance.
My concern in Committee which caused me to move the successful amendment was to make sure that the licence-holder was not to be held responsible by the board for conduct or behaviour which was outwith his control. However, accept that misconduct or nuisances occurring outside licensed premises as a result of what goes on in them should be taken into account. I entirely accept that, if there is habitual misconduct outside licensed premises and it is obviously related to the people using the premises, that would be a factor that the board would be entitled to take into account.
However, I am anxious about the single incident, the one occasion when, in order to conduct his premises properly, the licence-holder perhaps puts out of his premises someone who is causing a nuisance. I am distinguishing between the one incident and the habitual nuisance, and I hope that the licensing board will treat them differently.
While I do not expect the Minister to give a total assurance tonight, I hope he will say that he will consider this matter. If he feels that I have identified a problem, he might like to deal with it in another place.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has made a good case, as he did on this subject in Committee. The discussion is recorded at columns 377 to 380 of Hansard for 15th June. Does the Minister confirm that

any suspension of a licence under this subsection will be subject to a right of appeal to a sheriff? If there is to be an appeal, as seems plain from subsection (2), it is unlikely that the court would uphold a suspension on the ground of only one incident.
Can the Minister explain why he has used the words
on the part of persons frequenting those premises"?
An appeal might be held up because of those words. The Government will be aware that the original Bill used the words
vicinity of the licensed premises".
The Minister knows that in this and in other respects he has my support. We had a good relationship in Committee and it is sad that circumstances of which he is aware have destroyed that.
Let us take the example of a street or city where there is very little trouble and no inconvenience. Let us say that a public house is built and that from that moment on there are people being sick and urinating in the nearby closes, that this is going on regularly and that with the arrival of the pub the situation changes from being peaceful, harmonious and pleasant. Will it be possible for the licensing board to defend itself in an appeal against the claim that the people concerned were not the people who frequented the premises?
There need not be any evidence that those who are sick and urinating in the closes are the people who frequent the pubs. How will the licensing board get evidence that the nuisance is caused by people frequenting the premises? If the matter goes to the sheriff court, which is more than likely, precisely how is it intended that the board should defend its actions?
5.30 a.m.
Is it wise to put in the words
on the part of a person frequenting those premises
at all? Even if it were possible to prove they were not frequenting a public house, is it fair and reasonable, if a public house becomes a gathering ground for people who cause undue nuisance, that no action can be taken about the existence of that public house? Public houses on street corners tend to be gathering


areas. If a pleasant street is to be subjected to undue nuisance because of this, is it fair to restrict the basis of complaint in the way the Minister has done in this amendment?
I am suggesting that the Government had it right in the Bill as originally drafted when the words were
misconduct occurring in the vicinity of licensed premises".
By changing the words as they have done, they will make it very difficult for the boards to pursue an offence if a case is appealed to the sheriff, as it would be in the event of the suspension of a licence.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On the points raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), I give an assurance that we shall have another look at the wording and make any changes that we feel are necessary to meet the points. We hope that the wording in Clause 33(6), which defines the time limits in which a suspension would not take effect, and in subsection (8), which defines the question of appeals to the sheriff, will meet the points raised by the hon. Member. I think that this meets the point of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) also.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps at this point I may make a statement. A little while ago the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) asked whether a separate Division would be possible on Amendment No. 49. My predecessor ruled that it had fallen when Amendment No. 6 was agreed to. I have since taken further advice and have come to the conclusion that the two amendments are not incompatible. Therefore, there may be a Division on Amendment No. 49 if the hon. Member wishes.

Clause 35

OCCASIONAL LICENCE FOR PREMISES OTHER THAN LICENSED PREMISES OR CLUBS.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 22, line 25, leave out 'licensed premises' and insert:
'the licensed premises in respect of which he is the holder of a licence'.

This is a clarification of the intention of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 22, line 39, leave out 'infringes' and insert 'contravenes'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government Amendments Nos. 34, 31, and 35.

Mr. Millan: These are drafting amendments which make the wording of the clause consistent with that in the rest of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 22, line 42, leave out 'infringed' and insert 'contravened'.

No. 31, in page 23, line 2, leave out 'infringement' and insert 'contravention'.

No. 35, in page 23, line 5, leave out 'infringement' and insert 'contravention'.

No. 36, in page 23, line 30, leave out subsection (11).—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 36

CONSENT OF LICENSING BOARD REQUIRED FOR RECONSTRUCTION, ETC. OF CERTAIN LICENSED PREMISES.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 24, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
This meets a commitment made in Committee that we would remove the subsection, and that is what the amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37

POWER OF LICENSING BOARD TO ORDER STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS ON RENEWAL OF CERTAIN LICENCES

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 25, line 35, leave out "decide" and insert "decides".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may also discuss Government Amendment No. 39.

Mr. Ewing: These are drafting amendments to insert the singular for the


plural form of words since "licensing boards" is treated elsewhere in the Bill as singular.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39

POWER OF LICENSING BOARD TO MAKE BYELAWS

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 26, line 12, leave out "their" and insert "its".—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 40

APPEALS TO SHERIFF

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 27, line 18, at end insert:
or in a case where reasons for a decision have been given under section 19(2) of this Act, within 14 days from the date of receipt of those reasons, which shall be presumed to have been received on the day after the date on which they were posted, except that in the case of reasons posted on a Friday or Saturday, they shall be presumed to have been received on the Monday next following'.
In a case where a licensing board had been asked to give reasons for its decision, the amendment would allow a period of 14 days within which an appeal could be made to the sheriff, to run from the date of receipt of the reasons instead of from the date of the board's decision. It is an improvement which allows rather more time for the appeal.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept that the amendment is an improvement. Instead of allowing simply 14 days, it allows 14 days from the alleged receipt of the reasons. Cannot the Secretary of State guarantee that 14 days will be allowed from the actual receipt of the reasons? The reasons could get lost in the post and there would be unreasonable delay. With registered post and recorded delivery it would be possible to establish when the reasons were delivered. To assume that letters are delivered the next day after posting could lead to injustice. Sometimes they do not arrive the next day. Is it fair or wise to write in an assumption which may not be a fact?
I am concerned also that there is no reference to the time of posting. The amendment simply says
on the day after the date on which they were posted".

If letters are posted very late at night, it is extremely unlikely that they will be delivered next morning. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to look at these matters between now and when the Bill goes to the Lords, with a view to producing more realistic provisions?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If I read the clause correctly, unless an appeal is notified within the time limits given it will be time-barred. In the case of valuation appeals, if the time limits are not met the valuation appeal committee, in deciding to give a statement of reasons or to go ahead with an appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, has discretion to proceed even though the strict letter of the law has not been obeyed. There is case law to that effect. We have flexibility in the valuation system for appeals of a serious nature, but in the Bill a rigid time limit is set. Has the Minister considered the possibility of giving some form of discretion in relation to such appeals?

Mr. Millan: I think that the wording about posting is common form, but I am willing to consider it to ascertain whether it is right. I am willing to consider whether the second point is covered by implication or by convention, or whether we should consider writing something into the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 27, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—

'(a) erred in law;
(b) based its decision on any incorrect material fact;
(c) acted contrary to natural justice; or
(d) exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner.
( ) In considering an appeal grounded on paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above, the sheriff may hear evidence by or on behalf of any party to the appeal.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 117, in page 27, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—

'(a) erred in law;
(b) based its decision on any incorrect material fact;
(c) acted contrary to natural justice; or
(d) exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner.
(3A) The Sheriff may in considering an appeal under subsection (3)(b) above hear evidence by or on behalf of any party to the appeal'.

Mr. Ewing: Amendment No. 41 would provide an additional ground on which a sheriff might uphold an appeal against a licensing board's decision. It would enable the sheriff to hear evidence for or on behalf of any party on appeal on the ground that the board had based its decision on an incorrect material fact. The Law Society of Scotland made representations to us, and the amendment is designed to meet them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 28, line 3, leave out Part III.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 93, in page 88, line 10, leave out Schedule 2.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The amendment is of a fundamenal nature and I do not necessarily expect the House to come to a complete conclusion on the matter at this stage. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to deal with the matter in Committee, but it did not come to to my attention until later. I ask for no more than the Government to give this matter consideration between now and the Bill going to another place.
In Part III and in Schedule 2 we are legislating for seamen's canteens. I imagined that it must be a matter of some importance, and further research revealed that in Scotland there are only two seamen's canteens, both of which are in Glasgow. Precedent for dealing with them separately in licensing law goes right back to the 1939 Defence Regulations.
We are devoting seven clauses and one schedule to the two canteens in Glasgow. They may or may not need special treatment, but when dealing with licensing legislation the objective should be not merely to clarify but to try to ensure that we remove from old legislation such provisions as are not completely necessary.
I move the amendment in order to ask whether we can remove an anachronism and whether we cannot tidy up the Bill slightly and shorten things. Is it relevant in 1976 to have the seven clauses and the schedule merely for the purpose of covering two canteens in the whole of Scotland? I do not feel strongly about this

issue in any sense, but as much other tidying has been done I merely ask why this possible piece of tidying was not carried out.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: It is very tempting to lighten the statute book by removing seven clauses and one schedule from any Bill. The difficulty is that these seamen's canteens—there are only two of them, as the hon. Gentleman said, and they are both in Glasgow—present some difficulties in definition. They cannot be defined as clubs because they are open to all seamen. They cannot be described as pubs because they are not open to the public. Off-sales from these places are not allowed either. They cannot be described as Service men's clubs because they are not under the control of the Government. The great difficulty was in finding a precise part of the licensing legislation where they would fit in.
We shall have another look at it. If we can find a way to lighten the legislation we shall do so, but I say that with tongue in cheek in view of the difficulties involved.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Government might look at whether these seamen's canteens could be covered from the club angle in some way or other. That might be a sensible way in which to approach the problem. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54

PERMITTED HOURS IN LICENSED PREMISES AND REGISTERED CLUBS

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 37, line 38, leave out from 'and' to 'eleven' in line 39 and insert
'provided that the premises are closed for any period of two and a half hours at the discretion of the licence-holder within the limits of the permitted hours'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 48, in page 38, line 5, leave out from 'and' to 'eleven' in line 6 and insert
'provided that the premises are closed for any period of two and a half hours at the discretion of the licence holder within the permitted hours,'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is an amendment of some substance. In Committee I tried to remove from the clause the afternoon break, for reasons I described. I was defeated in Committee, and I accept the principle of that defeat and that the afternoon break should be in the legislation. What I am now seeking is that the break should be flexible and left to the discretion of the licensee. Simply having an afternoon break between two specified times, as under the Bill as drafted introduces a certain rigidity. I believe that we should be seeking greater flexibility in order to help to improve attitudes, and to ensure that the licensing legislation reflects better the customs and habits of a particular area.
In certain areas, for example, a public house may be near an industrial estate, a large factory, a shipyard or an engineering works where a particular kind of shift working is done. One might on occasion want to have the afternoon break coinciding with the time when one shift finishes and another shift comes in. By keeping the principle of the break but allowing the actual timing of it to be at the discretion of the licensee, it would be easier for the licensee to reflect more closely the habits and customs of the area in which the public house was situated and thereby to meet more nearly the needs and customs of those who might be using the premises. It is in that sense that I move the amendment.

Mr. Tom McMillan: I agree with the amendment although I think that it is badly worded. I do not think that the hours should be left to the discretion of the licence-holder. The licence-holder should apply to the board, which should specify the hours which it thinks are suitable to the district. The amendment would allow the licence-holder to vary the two and a half hours from week to week and month to month. That is the weakness of the amendment.
The Minister should consider the case of a large area in which there is a large proportion of nocturnal workers. The meat market, which is in my constituency, starts work at 6 a.m. and finishes at 2 p.m. The workers rush to the nearest pub and swallow as many drinks as possible before it closes at 2.30 p.m.
Workers such as taxi drivers who are nocturnal workers have special organisa-

tions and clubs. The Press has clubs. Journalists are properly organised. Those who work nocturnal hours may use their clubs. However, the majority of nocturnal workers have no organisation. The amendment would allow a licence-holder to look at the situation in his area and choose the hours to suit it. The wording of the amendment is wrong as it would allow a licensee to change his hours from week to week and month to month.
I think that the Government might look at the possibility of licence-holders, especially in areas where there are large numbers of nocturnal workers, registering their opening hours with the board.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The amendment is concerned with the statutory afternoon break. I had the feeling that my hon. Friend was talking to the proposition that a licence-holder should have the ability to choose the hours in the day, within the number of hours laid down, when he should open. For instance, if he decided to open at 6 a.m., so be it as long as he did not exceed the 10½ hours' drinking time during the day. That is not the purpose of the amendment. Its purpose is to give flexibility to the two-and-a-half hour break so that the licence-holder, the publican, may decide when the two-and-a-half hour break should be taken during the day. There are serious defects in that.
When it emerged from Committee, the Bill contained provision for a statutory afternoon break from 2.30 until 5 p.m. The Government do not accept the Clayson proposal that there should not be an afternoon break. Clayson recommended that the drinking hours should last from 11 a.m. until 11 p.m. We do not accept the concept of a flexible afternoon break, for the good reason that people would be able to move from pub to pub drinking continuously. It would be possible for different pubs to take different afternoon breaks, thereby providing a continuous period of drinking in an area from 11 a.m. until 11 p.m.
We were not convinced by the arguments in Committee. I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that we are not convinced this morning. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Tom McMillan: My hon. Friend is a little off the mark. The idea is that the licensing board considers the application by the licence-holder and makes a decision. A public house which is near a steelworks, for example, will attract steel workers, not citizens from other parts of the town.

Mr. Ewing: Whatever Clayson was arguing, it was not for different licensing hours for different parts of Scotland. The Guest Committee, whose report was accepted by the Conservative Government in 1962, maintained the principle of uniform hours throughout Scotland, as did Clayson. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a demand for the degree of flexibility that my hon. Friend suggests. Neither committee argued that the hours should not be standard throughout Scotland.

Mr. Tom McMillan: Although Clay-son argued that, the Government did not adopt it. In Covent Garden public houses are open from 6 a.m., but only people who work in Covent Garden are allowed to enter them. That is what I had in mind. The hours should be flexible to suit the people who are being catered for.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McMillan) put forward a valid argument which coincides with mine. In the Glasgow meat market, work usually finishes at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon and there is a rush to the public houses, which close at 2.30 p.m. We are seeking a greater degree of flexibility.
Whether the hours are laid down from day to day or from month to month, flexibility is needed. I agree with the Minister that an afternoon break should not be seen as an excuse for a denial of drinking. That is not the purpose of the amendment.
I know that the Minister is against the amendment, but I ask him, without commitment, to look again at this subject to see whether there can be a flexible system where there is a specific pattern, for example in a meat market. Overall control would rest with the licensing board. With a little ingenuity, safeguards could

be introduced. We have raised a point of substance which warrants further study.

Mr. Harry Ewing: We shall have a look at it again, but I have pointed out all the difficulties and I promise to look at it without commitment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.0 a.m.

Mrs. Bain: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 37, line 39, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'.
In this amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and I have recognised that a major problem exists in alcoholism. In recognising that it is a major problem, we have tried to put forward a partial solution. It is not perfect, but it is a partial solution. The Secretary of State drew attention earlier to the fact that he was concerned about the extension of licensing hours and the problems associated with that. We hope that he will support the amendment.
We hope to offer a solution to the kind of situation in which so many working men in Scotland go straight to the public house after work for what is called "a quick pint with the boys" but often tend to stay from 5 o'clock until 10.30, and then go home finding they have spent their wages. We should like a situation in which men are encouraged to go home, particularly on Thursday and Friday, take home their wages, and see their wives and families and perhaps have a meal before going out for a drink with their friends in the evening. This would help family life and do much to attack alcoholism in Scotland. If the Government will not accept the amendment, we shall press it to a vote.

Mr. Canavan: I am somewhat struck by the sheer cant and hypocrisy of the Scottish National Party in coming in like this. I wonder why this amendment was selected, because it is starred and was obviously tabled very late. I understand that there was considerable debate on this matter in Committee.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member was attacking the fact


that the amendment has been selected. I think it is correct to say that it is in order, because these amendments were tabled within the appropriate time but were not printed on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful for the explanation by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), but I advise him to get his amendments down earlier, as other hon. Members do.
Members of the Scottish National Party, who spend much of their time upstairs in the bar, seem to be saying that although, because they work here, they can have drink literally unlimited from 11 o'clock in the morning until half an hour after the House adjourns, the ordinary working man or woman in Scotland cannot be trusted to go into a pub at 5 o'clock and have a responsible drink. Frankly, it is an insult to the working people of Scotland, and I hope that the Government will reject the amendment.

Mr. Tom McMillan: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a little of the Rip Van Winkle about this, because industry stops between five minutes to four and 4 o'clock. There has been a big change. People do not now clock off at 5 o'clock. They have time to go home and do things and then have a drink. The Scottish National Party is a little behind the times with this.

Mr. Millan: I am not sure how the amendment got on to the Amendment Paper. I understand that it was put down in Committee but that for some extraordinary reason the hon. and kilted Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), who has joined our proceedings again, did not move it. It is a substantial amendment and it is better to consider such matters in Committee.
The amendment proposes a considerable reduction in the permitted opening hours. Despite what the hon. Lady for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) said, I have no evidence—and there have been studies by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—of a relationship between drinking from 5 to 6 p.m. and heavy drinking. In fact, it seems to be mostly social drinking. It would be a considerable reduction in social convenience to prevent people having a drink on their way home from work.
It may be undesirable for social and other reasons for someone to go straight to a pub after work and to stay until closing time, but we must draw a balance between that situation and the fact that many people use pubs between 5 and 6 p.m. for the reasonable purpose of having a drink before going home. I do not think that we should deny them that facility.

Mrs. Bain: The Secretary of State has missed the point of social responsibility in the context of the amendment. As a woman, I emphasise that our amendment reflects the view of many wives in Scotland who want their husbands to go home after work—whatever time they finish—before going to a public house. The temptation for men to stay in a public house, especially on pay day, is great. The Secretary of State should recognise these human weaknesses.
The hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) claimed earlier that he was concerned about the welfare of bar staff and attendants working in public houses. It would be to their advantage if the amendment were accepted, because they would be able to spend more time at home with their children.

Mr. William Ross: I have a certain sympathy with the amendment, but it was not moved in Committee—which shows a certain amount of contempt for the Committee—even though it is now said to be so important. These facts do not add up.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Chairman asked the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) in Committee whether he wished to move Amendment No. 108. The hon. Member said "No". The hon. Member was then asked whether he wanted a separate vote on Amendment No. 108. He again replied "No". That is recorded at col. 517 of the Committee's proceedings of Tuesday 22nd June.

Mr. Ross: That makes it all the more amazing that the hon Lady the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) should come along and tell us how important the amendment is. The Scottish National Party should have seized its chance in Committee. I am surprised that in these circumstances the amendment has been selected. I know that the


Chair does not give reasons why amendments are selected or not selected, but the point made earlier about starred amendments is pertinent. Starred amendments are not usually selected and there must be a special reason in this instance, although I am not aware of one.
The hon. Lady also talked about pay day, but what we are discussing does not occur only on pay day. It happens every day of the week. I have not the slightest doubt that the great majority of women in Scotland do not want to see pubs open on Sunday, yet the hon. Lady, who claims that she is concerned about the feelings of wives and women in Scotland, went into the Lobby in favour of pubs being open on Sunday. There is a certain element of hypocrisy in that.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mt. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this evening the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was allowed to make two contributions during a debate with the leave of the House. May I please do so now. I shall confine my remarks to one paragraph.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman must have the leave of the House.

Mr. Ross: I had given way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Concannon), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not finished my remarks.

Mr. Canavan: I wanted to point out that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and I, when we were both employed as school teachers in Stirling, often used to adjourn at the end of term to an inn in Bannockburn along with her colleagues in the teaching profession at 5 o'clock. What she is trying to do is to make those meetings illegal. She is trying to make the unfortunate teachers wait until 6 o'clock in order to get a drink in a pub.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That confirms what I thought, that there is an element of hypocrisy in this belated amendment. The Scottish National Party is trying to save its face because the majority of its Members voted in favour of Sunday opening.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am surprised that the former Secretary of State for Scotland should adopt the attitude he has. This amendment has been put down in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain). We are perfectly entitled to put forward such amendments as we wish. Neither I nor my hon. Friend was a member of the Committee, and we are perfectly entitled to table the amendment. It has been selected, and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) expressed some vague sympathy with it. We considered that the amendment contained an important point, and my hon. Friend indicated that she was not satisfied with the answer which has been given by the Minister. Neither am I. In those circumstances, I cannot see how we can do other than press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 50.

[For Division List No. 289 see col. 615.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 47. in page 37, line 43, at end insert
but only in the case of premises in respect of which an application for Sunday opening has been made to and granted by a licensing board in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Sunday opening of premises in respect of which a public house licence or refreshment licence is in force and Sunday restriction orders relating to licensed premises) to this Act, which shall have efiect.'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Amendment proposed: No. 49, in page 38, line 14, at end insert—

'(5) Notwithstanding the provisions above, the permitted hours under subsection (2) above shall only include Sundays in licensing board areas where the adult population express a desire to have Sunday opening.

(6) To establish public opinion under subsection (5) above, each licensing board shall, on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State, hold a referendum on Sunday opening and if a majority of those voting in the referendum vote for Sunday opening, the permitted hours shall be deemed to include Sundays.

(7) If, not later than 30 days of a date to be specified by the Secretary of State each five years from the date of the referendum under subsection (6) above, 10 per cent. of the electors in a licensing board area request a further referendum, the licensing board shall hold a further poll'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 45.

[For Division List No. 290 see col. 617.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 55

PROHIBITION OF SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR EXCEPT DURING PERMITTED HOURS

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 38, line 29, leave out 'ten' and insert 'fifteen'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 53.

Mr. Ewing: The effect of the amendments will be to increase drinking-up time from 10 to 15 minutes. That will be a bonus when the hon. Lady the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) goes back to work at St. Modan's School and my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) meets her when he is home in the parliamentary recess, when they can drink until 11.15 instead of 11.10 as under the original proposal.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We had a prolonged debate on Sunday opening, when one of the main arguments was that any additional time allowed for drinking would result in more drink being consumed and, therefore, in more alcoholism and more misery. We have already extended hours from 10 to 11 and here we have a small addition, five minutes. Does the Minister think that this small addition will result in more or less drink being consumed, or will the amount remain the same?

Mr. Dempsey: I wish to ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I have been sitting here since 11.15 and I am surely entitled in the House of Commons to ask a question. Will the local licensing board have discretion to extend the time of 11.15 by a further 10 minutes or quarter of an hour, as now?

Mr. Harry Ewing: I think that this extension will neither increase nor decrease consumption; I think the result will be that exactly the same amount

will be consumed. I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that drinking-up time is clearly defined as being 15 minutes after closing time.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 38, line 34, leave out 'ten' and insert 'fifteen'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 57

ALTERNATIVE PERMITTED HOURS IN CERTAIN ATHLETIC CLUBS DURING WINTER

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 40, line 8, after 'evening', insert:
'or alternatively be the said periods on weekdays other than Saturday, and on Saturday be the period between one in the afternoon and half-past ten in the evening'.
This amendment meets a commitment that I made to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in Committee when the hon. Member kindly allowed me to take his proposition to find a suitable form of words for it.

Mr. Monro: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for fulfilling his commitment to redraft my amendment to make it effective. I am sure that many sports clubs throughout the country will be deeply grateful to him for his consideration.
Without trespassing too much on the hon. Gentleman's good will, I should like to say that I am still getting requests from one group of sportsmen—particularly appropriate on a day when we have won a gold medal in Canada. Those who sail are largely governed by the tide and therefore cannot fix their racing for the afternoon, perhaps because there is no water.
Will the Minister consider whether in certain circumstances the closed period from 1st April to 1st September could be extended for certain sports such as sailing in which there are particular difficulties? I only ask him to think about this.

Mr. Ewing: I am prepared to look at that proposition to see what might be done for those sailers with whom the hon. Member has a fellow feeling.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62

SEASONAL LICENCES

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I beg to move Amendment No. 58 in page 45, line 10, leave out '180' and insert '240'.
I am one of the few hon. Members who have not spoken in tonight's debate. The reason for the amendment is that in the tourist trade areas of Scotland there are hotels which, because of the various sports for which they give facilities, have to remain open for a longer time than in the past. We want to increase the number of days for seasonal licences from 180 to 240. This applies particularly to places like those in my constituency—Braemar, Ballater, and Aboyne.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As I recall, we discussed this matter at length in Committee. Clause 62 is a re-enactment, with modifications, of Section 10 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1962, which allows a licensing court, if an applicant so requests and the court considers that the requirement of the area make it desirable, to insert in a certificate a condition that the licensed premises shall not open for the supply of alcoholic liquor during specified parts of the year totalling not more than 180 days. The amendment would raise the limit to 240 days.
This provision for seasonal licences originated in the First Report of the Guest Committee on Scottish Licensing Law and was designed to make it clear that licensed premises, mainly rural and tourist hotels, need not remain open all the year round as expected of them by some licensing courts. In the Highlands and Islands areas particularly, there was not enough business to justify licensed premises staying open all the year round. The limit of 180 days followed a Guest recommendation, with which Clayson did not quarrel, as a compromise between no limit on closure and a licensing court requirement of all-year-round opening.
The whole clause is, like Clause 55 (5) on permitted hours, declaratory in nature rather than a substantive provision. Its effect is to enable a licence-holder who does not wish his premises to remain open all the year to obtain an appropriate condition from the licensing board to show that he has the board's approval

of his closure. Since the limit of 180 days has served its purpose for 14 years without difficulties arising, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64

OCCASIONAL AND REGULAR EXTENSIONS OF PERMITTED HOURS

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 46, line 45, at end insert
'or a private function organised by an individual member or group of members of the club'.
I wish to declare an interest in that I am a member of the Bannockburn Miners' Welfare Club, the only club mentioned in my entry in Who's Who. The amendment is designed to remove an anomaly in order to allow late functions to be held in private clubs as long as the functions are organised by an individual member or group of members of a club. It arose from a meeting that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I attended at the Bannockburn Miners' Welfare Club with representatives from that club and other clubs in Stirlingshire. The suggestion was put forward then and it was explained that there was a fault in this respect in the existing legislation and an omission in the Bill.
I can illustrate the case for the amendment with an example. Suppose that a member of a club had a daughter who was to be married and he decided to hold the wedding reception in the club. Suppose that he wanted a late licence so that the reception could continue until midnight. Under the existing legislation and under the Bill, the club would not be able to provide the late licence. It would have to bring in an external licensee to provide the bar facilities. From past experience and from what I gather from those who manage clubs, this causes considerable organisational and travel difficulties, and in many cases it leads to a poorer-quality service since often only canned or bottled beer, which is more expensive, is available, a situation which is made worse by the fact that draught beer may be available more


cheaply but for the prohibition on the use of the club facilities.
This is a reasonable proposal. The club secretary would still have to apply for the late licence and the concession would be confined to a club member or group of members. Also, the other guests attending the function would have to be signed into the club as guests in the usual way.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I have had a good, close look at the proposition, but I am bound in all honesty to say regretfully that I cannot accept it as put. We have done a great deal in the Bill for licensed clubs. We have provided that when a club holds a function related to its activities in premises other than the club—in other words, if it takes its annual dance to the town hall—it can take its licence with it. Under existing law, it would have to get an outside licensee to provide the bar facilities in those premises. We have therefore adhered to the principle established through the years that functions held in the club must be related to the club's activities before the club is allowed an extension.
We have examined all the possibilities In this regard and we have come to the conclusion that it would be better if, having extended the provision for clubs to take their licence with them when they hold club-related activities outside the club premises, we adhered to the principle in respect of functions inside the club premises as well. Extensions can be granted, but only on the basis of functions relating to a club's activities. To accept the amendment would extend the provisions in an unacceptable way. Therefore, regretfully, I have to resist the amendment.

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation but I am afraid that I find it unsatisfactory. It seems strange that under the Bill we shall give a club permission to take its licence to external premises and yet we shall not give permission to a member of a club, or a group of individual members, to hold a social activity such as a wedding or a funeral reception after the half-past two closing time. It appears rather strange that we should be discriminating in this way against ordinary members of clubs. I shall press to a Division what

I consider to be a reasonable amendment.

Mr. Tom McMillan: I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He makes a reasonable request. My daughter's engagement party took place in my club, as did my son's engagement party. The constitution of the club provided that it was shut on Mondays but that it could be opened on certain occasions. My hon. Friend makes a most reasonable request and I think that the House should adopt it.

Sir John Gilmour: If a club can take a licence out to other premises, presumably it is possible for at least 50 per cent. of the people attending such a function not to be club members but to be guests of members. It seems rather odd that the Minister cannot accede to this request.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I make it abundantly clear that there is no question of discrimination. The principle which has been applied over the years is that functions must be related to the activities of the club. It would be impossible to relate a wedding to the activities of the club.

Mr. Tom McMillan: rose—

Mr. Ewing: If my hon. Friend is about to suggest that the wedding is because of the activities of the club, I shall accept what he says.

Mr. McCartney: In this building we have the kirk downstairs. There are various things that take place down there, such as weddings, when those involved are related to a Member of this place or another place. That has nothing to do with what goes on inside the Chamber or in another place. What difference is there in principle between that situation and the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has referred? Surely what my hon. Friend has requested is not unreasonable. It is a minimal proposal in relation to the totality of what is proposed for clubs under the Bill.

Mr. Ewing: I see all the difference in the world between marrying someone and filling someone with drink.

Mr. Lambie: That is dirty.

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend should be careful about making that sort of comment from a sedentary position.

Mr. Lambie: I said that it was dirty because we are back to the old statements by Ministers that they are anti-drink. All the efforts we have been making to try to liberalise the drink laws in the Bill are against the wishes of the Government. We are going over the battles that were fought in the first debate that took place on Sunday drinking. That is why I said it was dirty.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am prepared to have a look at it and to see whether something can be done about it, but even if at the end of the day we reject the amendment that does not mean that anyone holding a wedding will be unable to have drink at it. It is not a question of the Government being anti-drink. If the Government were anti-drink, the Bill would never have been introduced in the first place. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) cares to withdraw the amendment I shall have another look at it.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend give way? I take a serious objection to the comment that was made by the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) also objects. The suggestion is that people who attend funerals, weddings and so on are essentially drunkards. My daughter was married only four weeks ago, and I take great objection to what has been said here.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. Friend is upset at what I said, I willingly and unreservedly withdraw my remarks.

Mr. Canavan: I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider my amendment further, but from past experience of such assurances from Ministers—this is not meant personally against my hon. Friend in any way—I feel that the best method of getting the Government to consider the amendment in detail is to have it written into the Bill at this stage, so that those characters along the corridor in the other place who sometimes interfere with our Socialist legislation can do some tidying up.
In this instance, I seriously think that a lot of ordinary working people who are members of clubs, and who are concerned about late licences for occasions such as weddings, funerals, christenings and so on, would like to see this very reasonable amendment put into effect by a Labour Government. I therefore wish to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 22.

[For Division List No. 291 see col. 671.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 65

RESTRICTION ORDERS

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 47, line 31, after 'safety', insert
'or that the licensed premises do not conform to a standard regarded as acceptable by the members of the board'.
This is an important amendment which tests the sincerity of the Government and a large number of hon. Members who voted for Sunday opening and for the Bill.
Throughout our discussions, the Minister expressed the hope that an improvement in the standard of licensed premises would result from the Bill. But there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that improvement will occur. The Bill contains provisions which the Minister hopes will ensure an improvement, but there is nothing to ensure that Sunday opening and an extension of hours will improve the standard.
The amendment is an attempt to secure a modest upgrading of the standard of licensed premises. Under Clause 65, the new hours of selling drink, up to 11 p.m. plus a quarter of an hour, can be reduced by a restriction order if the licensing board is persuaded that the premises constitute an undue public nuisance or a threat to public order or safety. One might think that if a public house provided a threat to public order or safety it would be modest to say that instead of selling until 11 p.m. it could sell only until 10 p.m.
If there is a threat to public order or safety, the board can consider a restriction order or, in other words, a fine, by the loss of one hour of drink sales time. I suggest going a bit further and I have proposed that, if members of a board are of the opinion that licensed premises do not conform to the standard they regard as acceptable, they can impose a restriction order which would mean 10 o'clock closing. This is a kind of two-tier system which can be operated by the members of the board.
Hon. Members have disagreements about some matters, but we all want to see pub standards improved. This is a modest way in which it can be achieved. One may ask what difference an hour would make. I suggest that if people are faced with a choice of going to a pub which closes at 11 p.m. or to another which closes at 10 p.m. they will be likely to go to the one which closes at 11 o'clock. It is a form of discipline which should be applied by the boards to improve standards.
This is not a novel suggestion or new departure. The Government already say that they will apply discipline, but only in cases where the house constitutes a nuisance or provides a threat to public safety and order. I propose to extend the restriction orders to saying "This pub is not up to standard."
I see that there will be some arguments against this proposal. People will ask "Is it fair if the board in Ross and Cromarty applies different standards to those applied in Glasgow?" The boards are the democratic representatives of their areas and should impose their own standards. I am not laying down rigid criteria or saying how large should be the drinking space or that the pub should provide meals or seats or display a sign saying "No women admitted" but am leaving it entirely to the boards to say what they regard as an acceptable standard.
This will give considerable power to the boards, but that is there already because they can say what is a threat to public order. Something which constitutes a threat in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles would be different from what constituted such a threat in Glasgow. It will be up to the boards to fix their

own standards of public nuisance or safety.
There is, therefore, no change in principle. We can give more scope within the principle. I am suggesting that we should extend it. The people of Scotland will be concerned that we are taking this step of licensing reform without a specific measure to improve public standards. This proposal would achieve that.
I hope that, having made a major reform in Scottish licensing, the House will accept this minor amendment to say that we shall apply this discipline. But what kind of discipline is it? Would it work? I believe that it would. If the board decides that a pub must close at 10 p.m., its income and reputation will be substantially affected. The pub will get a bad name.
7.15 a.m.
The Minister may say that the drafting of the amendment is not perfect, but he should not let that stop him from accepting the principle. The Government may also argue that they are trying to improve standards in the schedule which is to be considered later, but that provides that these disciplines shall be applied only if there is undue public nuisance or disturbance. That is not the same as improving standards. My amendment would be a useful step forward. I am not suggesting that pubs should be closed if they are not up to standard. If they improve, they should be allowed to return to 11 p.m. opening. This is within the spirit of the speeches of almost every hon. Member, whether for or against longer hours or Sunday opening. We all want to see standards improved.

Mr. Millan: Clause 65 is concerned only with restriction orders, and the restriction of opening hours is very much related to public nuisance and public disturbance. We want greater sanctions than a 10 p.m. closing time for premises that do not come up to standard and we have them in Clause 34, which provides the power to close premises which are not of an acceptable standard.
Far from not meeting the point of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), the Bill goes well beyond the sanction that he seeks. His amendment would weaken the powers of the Bill to deal with premises which are not of a suitable standard. We have much


stronger sanctions, and I hope that appropriate cases they will be used.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I cannot accept what the Secretary of State has said. If premises are to be closed because standards are not acceptable, should they not also be closed if there is undue public nuisance or disturbance?
Clause 34 says:
Where a licensing board considers that licensed premises are no longer suitable or convenient for the sale of alcoholic liquor, having regard to their character and condition, and the nature and extent of the use of the premises, the board may decide to hold a hearing with a view to making a closure order under this section".
The Minister will be aware that when the words "no longer" are used they must relate to a deterioration. There is certainly plenty of case law in this respect. If that is not the case, why are the words "no longer" contained in Clause 34? The Minister will be aware that this is a sanction which will be applied if there is a deterioration in the construction of the building or because of a change in circumstance. Clause 34 applies, like the rating laws, to a change in circumstance. If the amendment is accepted, it will not in any way affect Clause 34. It will not weaken Clause 34, but it would be an alternative sanction for different circumstances. If I am wrong, why are the words "no longer" included in Clause 34?
I want to give the licensing boards the power to improve the standard of pubs. Clause 34 is a violent section. I am not concerned with closing pubs down. I would suggest that most people, whether they live in Ross and Cromarty, Stornaway, Glasgow or anywhere else, would prefer a less rigid sanction than simply closing the pubs down.
For example, if a licensing board said that it was happy with eight pubs in its area but not the ninth, does the Minister say that we should close pub No. 9? That is not the answer. We should try to impose some form of discipline which will encourage pub No. 9 to improve its standards. The limited legal advice which I have received informs me that Clause 34 applies to pubs which have deteriorated or have changed circumstances. That is why the words "no longer" have been inserted. But if we want to make

provision for the improvement of standards in pubs, should we not have something along the lines suggested in the amendment?
I think that the Secretary of State is being a little unreasonable. He must accept that, even if we have the power that I am suggesting in Clause 65, the provisions contained in Clause 34 will remain undiluted. The amendment simply provides an additional power gradually to bring about an improvement in standards. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this point.
Whenever I have said anything, all I have got is a surly look from the Secretary of State. Although he and I may disagree about many things, I hope he can accept that one of the aims of the Bill is to improve public house standards. It would do no harm to accept the amendment, and it might do a lot of good. Irrespective of what the Secretary of State has said, I hope the House will accept that the amendment would be a useful one.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has changed his mind. At the beginning he complained that the Bill contained no provision to deal with the standard of premises. I said that such a provision was contained in Clause 34, and that it was a much tougher sanction than the one he is proposing, unnecessarily I think, to write into Clause 65. The hon. Gentleman now says that he wants to write it into Clause 65 as an additional sanction as if he was aware of Clause 34 all the time, which obviously he was not.
I do not know why the hon. Gentleman cannot occasionally get up and say he is sorry and that he has overlooked Clause 34. He gets up and goes on at great length as if he had known about it all the time, and now he wants to do something which is entirely different from what he originally said. Closures on grounds of public safety are dealt with in Clause 33. There is, therefore, no gap in the Bill from that point of view.
There is no significance in the use of the phrase "no longer" except that a licence should not be given in the first place unless the premises are of a satisfactory standard. It follows logically that they cannot be closed unless they are no


longer of a satisfactory standard. There is no sinister significance in the phrase. The amendment would weaken the sanctions in the Bill, which the hon. Member originally said that he favoured.

Mr. William Ross: I can appreciate the extent of the concern of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), but I wonder whether he read Clause 65 before he tabled the amendment. This provision relates only to the sale or supply of alcoholic liquor in the evening, when there could be undue public nuisance which could constitute a threat to public order or safety. Now, however, the hon. Member seeks to shift the ground to licensed premises which do not conform to a standard acceptable to members of the board. That does not relate to the evening. That surely relates to the premises themselves, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, are adequately covered in the previous clauses. I appreciate what the hon. Member is seeking to do, but the amendment would not be desirable, effective or practical.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I respect the views of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I am sorry that the House appears to have no sympathy with what I am trying to do. Not one voice other than my own has been raised in support of the amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman takes that view, that is good enough for me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66

TEMPORARY RESTRICTION OF PERMITTED HOURS

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 48, line 35, after 'safety', insert
'and after consultation with representatives of the licensed premises in the area'.
The amendment would impose certain minor restrictions which would improve the clause. It would provide for consultation with owners of licensed premises in the area concerning the exemption of international airports. This would be helpful, because the privileges which these airports enjoy can affect other licensed premises in the area.

7.30 a.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Clause 66 gives effect to a Clayson recommendation and empowers a licensing board, on an application from a constable of the rank of chief inspector or above, to order a temporary restriction of permitted hours of up to three hours on a specified day if it considers it desirable in the interests of public order or safety. Circumstances in which this power might be used are, for example, those associated with a football match on a Saturday afternoon or an evening.
It is undeniable that a lot of public disorder is associated with football matches and, to a lesser extent, with some forms of demonstration or public meeting. Many licence-holders recognise this and voluntarily close their premises for the short period involved. Because some licence-holders act voluntarily, it is clearly desirable for a licensing board to consult representatives of the trade before making a temporary restriction order as the amendment proposes. There would be no point in the board making an order if it knew that the premises involved were to be closed anyway at the appropriate time on the initiative of the licensee. The true value of the power lies in the speed with which it could be used, and, if it were obligatory for a board to consult representatives of the licensed premises in the area before making an order, there is a risk that that advantage would be lost.
I have gone into that detailed explanation because I am sure that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will want to read it carefully when it appears in Hansard.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 49, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) Where practicable, the constable making an application under subsection (1) above shall notify the licence holder of premises to which the application refers and the licence holder of those premises may make representation to the Board'.
In Committee we debated the question of a temporary restriction being applied for by a police officer. We expressed concern that the licence-holder would not necessarily have knowledge that the application was being made and would


not be given the opportunity of making representations to the board.
I have had another look at this matter to see whether we could come back with an amendment which would meet the situation where it might be difficult for the police officer to notify the licence-holder but where practicable he should do so. I have qualified the new subsection which I am seeking to have inserted into the Bill by including the words "where practicable". Therefore, the licence-holder is being given not an absolute right but some protection. Otherwise, things could happen in a hurry without his knowing and being given an opportunity to put his view to the board.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I am sure he appreciates that I have tried to put it forward in a way which will not destroy the main purpose of principle of the clause.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The remarks that I made on Amendment No. 63 relate to this amendment as well in the sense that the speed with which the action could be taken is all-important to the purpose that it serves.
Clayson did not consider that licensees should have the right to object to the making of an order closing their premises for the purposes of law and order and related matters since closure would be for a limited period. I see no reason to disagree with the view of the Clayson Committee on the question of a right of objection.
There are already safeguards in the clause. An application would be made only by a senior police officer. I am confident that applications would be made only where the police were satisfied that there was a strong case. The board then has to consider whether it is satisfied that there is a strong case and whether it is desirable, in the interests of public order or safety, to make an order.
Since closure would be for a period of no more than three hours on a specified day, I do not think that the normal arguments about providing an opportunity for objections apply. As I said on the previous amendment, the board would probably have to act quickly in the circumstances envisaged by the clause. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member

for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for that explanation. I was not seeking to destroy the principle of the clause. In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 67

PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES AGAINST PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 50, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) Where a licence-holder is convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916 in connection with an application to a licensing board under this Act, the court by which he is convicted may, in addition to any other penalty which the court may impose, make an order in accordance with either or both of the following paragraphs, that is to say—

(a) that the licence-holder shall be disqualified from holding a licence for a period not exceeding five years in respect of the premises to which the application relates or related;
(b) that the premises to which the application relates or related shall be disqualified from being used as licensed premises for a period not exceeding five years.'.
The amendment is self-explanatory. It would enable the court which convicts a licence holder of corruption in connection with the granting of a licence to disqualify that person from holding a licence, and the premises from being licensed, for a period of five years.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68

PROTECTION OF YOUNG PERSONS

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 50, line 28, at end insert—
'(2A) A person under 18 shall not be in possession of or consume alcoholic liquor in any public place'.
This amendment is important. The Minister will recall that no hon. Members spoke in Committee against my proposition, which was that it should be unlawful for any person under the age of 18 to be in possession of or to consume alcoholic liquor in a public place.
The clause provides that a licence holder
shall not in licensed premises sell alcoholic liquor to a person under 18, or allow a person under 18 to consume alcoholic liquor in a bar, nor shall the holder of the licence allow any person to sell alcholic liquor to a person under 18.
There is also the provision that
A person under 18 shall not in licensed premises buy or attempt to buy alcoholic liquor nor consume alcoholic liquor in a bar.
Although licence holders are not allowed to sell drink to people under 18 and under-18s are not allowed to consume alcohol on licensed premises, underage drinking is a serious problem in Scotland—and there are indications that it is becoming worse. Often a youngster aged 19 will buy a substantial quantity of drink from an off-licence shop for his many friends who may be as young as 14. They will go to a public place—in Glasgow it is usually a park—and they will hold a drunken party. The police will see a crowd of youngsters with drink in their possession but they can do nothing. The Secretary of State may say that they can do something. If so, he should correct me.
My friends in the police are anxious because they are totally powerless to act if they see a crowd of youngsters with drink in their possession. Anyone who lives in an area with parks knows that this is a desperately serious problem. Any morning when walking in a park with their kids people can see large numbers of beer cans and bottles scattered about the place.
The Scottish Police Federation has suggested making it unlawful for young persons under the age of 18 to be in possession of drink in a public place. In Committee, the Minister was always sympathetic and reasonable and he said that he would examine the suggestion. He said:
At present, we are in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland about the implications of the creation of a new office along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Cathcart. I ask for the cooperation of the Committee, as I have had throughout the Bill, on this matter also, in that the matter is not pressed while our discussions with the association proceed. I will advise the hon. Member for Cathcart about the outcome of the discussions and about the Government's intention on Report, and I give him and the Committee the assurance that, if

it is possible to put down an amendment on Report that will meet his point, we shall either offer that amendment to him or put it down ourselves.—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd June 1976; c. 625.]
I received a letter from the Minister, dated 22nd July, saying:
I informed the Committee during the debate on your amendment to create a new offence that we had consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers. In the light of our consultations and further consideration of the matter we have decided against putting down an amendment. Since your own amendment is on the Order Paper again we shall have an opportunity to debate this further point on Report.
The Minister did not say that it could not he done. In view of the clear assurance given in Committee, is he now saying that it is not possible to nut down an amendment to meet the point or that he has thought about it and decided not to do so? If he does not want to do so, I wonder why.
I can think of the possible problems. For example, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) might want to send one of his children round with a bottle of brandy to his old granny, who might need it for medicinal reasons. It might be said that it would be an outrage if the youngster were apprehended by the police and locked up. That presumably could happen under a strict interpretation of the law, but a sensible fiscal would see that it did not. A charge probably would not be proceeded with. But something could be done about a group of rowdy youngsters having a drunken party in a public park or on their way to such a party.
If the Minister is serious about wanting to do something about the problem of teenage drinking, we must have a provision along the lines I suggest. The police need stronger powers. I very much doubt whether they would take action in the circumstances I have described if they had an explanation from the youngster or his parents.
I am glad to see the return to the Chamber of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McMillan), because I had his full support on this matter in Committee, where he said:
The point made by my hon. Friend of the little boy going round with a bottle to his granny does not exist in my mind. What is in my mind is what is happening in Glasgow today—the consumption by under-18s in closes, parks and other places from where


the rampage starts. It is the consumption of that drink by under-18s, it having been bought and supplied by over-18s, that concerns me."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd June 1976; c. 625.]
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in saying that it was a serious problem.

Mr. Tom McMillan: I think that I added that it would be better dealt with as a new offence.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, indeed, and it is a new offence that is the purpose of my amendment.
7.45 a.m.
My amendment provides for a new offence, and I hope that I shall have continued support for that proposal. The amendment suggests that
a person under 18 shall not be in possession of or consume alcoholic liquor in any public place".
That would make it an offence. We are dealing with Part VI of the Bill, which is headed "Offences", and Clause 68 is headed "Protection of young persons".
I represent a large housing scheme, as do many other hon. Members. When youngsters have taken drink, they go on rampages, breaking windows and making life intolerable for the majority of law-abiding decent citizens. We have to do something to protect youngsters from drink and also to protect the community from the consequences of youngsters consuming drink.
Has the Minister any other proposal? Will he try to deal with this problem through the social services, knowing that expenditure on the social services has been cut? Will he try to deal with it through the schools, knowing that expenditure on the schools has been cut?
We have to help to deal with what has become an urgent and serious problem for Scotland. We have the support of the Police Federation. I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has said, he suggested this amendment in Committee, and it is equally true that he kindly agreed to withdraw it in order that I could continue the discussions that I was then having with the Association of Police Officers. The problem is not that of creating a new offence but of enforce

ment once that new offence has been created. It is because of the problems of enforcement and the wider consideration of the police powers of stop and search, going way beyond possession of alcohol, that I decided not to table an amendment, as the hon. Member for Cathcart fairly said, and I advised him in writing of my decision.
I discussed the matter with the Association of Police Officers and with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. It was pointed out to me that there was already legislation of this kind not for alcohol but for tobacco. It is an offence for a youngster under 18 to be in possession of tobacco, but the police have found it impossible to enforce that and they strongly believe that to create a new offence along the lines on which, frankly, we were thinking would result in another provision that could not be enforced.
The hon. Member for Cathcart is stretching words a little when he says that his proposal has the support of the Police Federation. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that he is drawing on the booklet sent out by the Polic Federation in which there is a specific mention of the need for a new offence to be created against that background.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman read the extract?

Mr. Ewing: It is subject to interpretation and mine is that no policeman is anxious to create a new offence that cannot be enforced. That is the difficulty with this type of offence. I have discused the matter with the Association of Police Officers and the inspectorate and the advice we have been given is that enforcement is impossible.
It is not only a problem of youngsters drinking cheap wine in closes and so on. We also have youngsters who go on a picnic, for instance, with their parents, who may give them an occasional glass of wine. It is all very well to say that in those circumstances the police would not proceed with a charge if they were satisfied with the explanation, but that is a matter for speculation and creates sufficient doubt to convince me that I ought not to suggest an amendment and that I ought to resist the hon. Member's amendment.
Having said that, I wish to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with


what the hon. Member has said about the problem of under-age drinking. There are no easy answers. If there were, previous Governments would have found them. I give the assurance that we shall go on looking for an answer and I hope that when we find it, we shall be able to deal with the problem and enforce the solution.
Regretfully, I have to say that the solution proposed in the amendment is not the answer to this problem and that it cannot be enforced. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I cannot agree with the Minister at all. He has put forward a number of arguments, one of which is the claim that this could not be enforced. Is he saying that we should not have this law because it would not be possible to stop all youngsters under 18 who are carrying drink in a public place?
The law says that we shall not drive at more than 30 mph in a built-up area. Many people drive over that limit all the time and the police do not stop them all. There are simply not enough police to do this. Nevertheless, it is a good thing to have that law because from time to time the police catch someone who is speeding and take him to court.
The same applies to youngsters who are in possession of drink in public places. From time to time the police will see a crowd of bad youngsters and they will have the powers to stop them. Is the Minister arguing that we should not have an offence unless all the offenders can be caught? It has never been suggested that we cannot pass a law unless we can apply it to everyone.
In some areas of Scotland youngsters with drink are becoming a major public nuisance and the police have no powers to do anything about it. I challenge the Minister to tell me what the police in Glasgow, for example, can do if they see 10 youngsters, aged about 15, walking towards a park, in possession of five bottles of whisky, three bottles of gin and 20 cans of beer. Have they any powers to anything at all? If they do have the powers to confiscate the drink, then obviously we do not need this amendment, but my understanding is that they have no powers at all.
The Minister said that I interpreted the Police Federation pamphlet rather widely. Unfortunately I do not have my copy with me. But it is a bit thick for the Minister to say that my interpretation is incorrect unless he can produce a copy of the pamphlet and tell me to what extent I am wrong. All I can say is that my reacting of the pamphlet is that the Police Federation is in favour of the police having powers to stop youngsters from carrying drink in public places. I have also spoken to a large number of policemen, and they would like these powers.
The Minister must not underestimate the extent to which the police are fed up with their lack of powers for dealing with these youngsters. I do not want to start an acrimonious discussion on this matter, but the Minister should realise that the police are getting fed up to the teeth. My amendment would give them the power to confiscate the liquor and to have fined the youngsters who cause a public nuisance of this kind.
The Minister must not underestimate the effect on vandalism. Youngsters get drunk and then go on the rampage, threatening the lives and property of decent people. The Minister says that he can do nothing about it but that he will keep on looking for solutions in case one can be found. But if he accepts the amendment, what harm can it do? Does it bring the law into disrepute because it can he applied to everyone but someone might drink in a public place and get away with it? If that is the case, the 30 m.p.h. limit is an affront to the law. I am not convinced by what the Minister said and I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
Would it cause a great deal of inconvenience? Would it cause any offence to anyone? The Minister asked what would happen to the family in the park where the father offers his youngster a glass of wine. How stupid does the Minister think the police are? Is he saying that the police will go on raiding parties looking for fathers giving glasses of wine to their children? The police want this power so that they can apprehend the rowdies and young thugs who, after a drink, become young savages. They want to be able to confiscate their drink.
If the Minister's only argument is that the police will hide behind bushes in parks and watch for fathers giving a glass of wine to their children, that is a very poor argument. He did not say very much about the discussions with the chief police officers. He said that they thought that there was no case for making the change. But did they say that they would be angry if it were done? The amendment is a good amendment which will strengthen the police and play a small part in removing a very serious nuisance in areas such as the city of Glasgow.

Mr. Tom McMillan: I find myself in the same dreadful position as in Committee in that I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). He has highlighted one of the greatest problems among young people, particularly in Glasgow. I have declared before that my wife has an interest in a shop with an off-licence section and I have known of happenings there for some three years. Youngsters under 21 are not served and they set out to get their own back. The local policeman, who knows them and knows their ages, stops them outside the shop where they claim to have purchased drink for themselves. The shop proprietor says that he did not serve the youth, but to get his own back for being refused drink the youth insists that he did. In that way shopkeepers can become the victims of youngsters whom they have refused to serve.
This is particularly a problem in Garthamlock, Ruchazie and Craigend where youngsters get drunk and attack policemen. They run rampage in the place, smashing windows and vandalising. Yet it is not an offence for them to carry the drink that causes all the trouble.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart that something must be done about this problem. It is a growing problem, not something that is static. If we do not act now, we shall be in a desperate situation.

8.0 a.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) must not go on saying that the police want this offence. I have advised the House that the police, through the chief constables and the inspectorate, have told us

that they do not want the offence. That is why there is no amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend to provide this offence.
We have discussed this matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Like the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members, it recognises the problem of under-age drinking. However, the hon. Gentleman did not apply his mind to the problem that the police have in enforcing the existing law. That was the strongest evidence that was laid before us—namely, that the police could not enforce existing legislation. The chief constables and the inspectorate considered that they could not meet the sort of legislation that is now proposed. There were discussions and advice was given. That is why the Government decided to proceed in the manner that I have outlined.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We discussed this matter in Committee, and I made it clear that in my view the Scottish Police Federation, which represents all the serving officers in Scotland not of the rank of inspector, had taken the view that it wanted this offence. The Minister said that in his view there was some doubt about the pamphlet that was produced. I have had correspondence with the Scottish Police Federation and it has told me that it was pleased with what I was doing in raising the matter. My view is that the federation wants the amendment.
The Minister has said that he is taking this issue seriously. Did he take the trouble to ask the federation what its views were? He said that he was in touch with the chief constables, but in view of the discussions in Committee, has he consulted the federation that represents all the police in Scotland except for the chief constables and the boys at headquarters? I think it is fair to describe it as representing all representative policemen. Did he ask the federation for its views?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 35.

[For Division List No. 292 see col. 619.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 51, line 27, after 'person', insert 'knowingly'.
Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I trust that you had a pleasant night.

Mr. Speaker: I realise that the Scots take drink seriously, but I did have a good night.

Sir John Gilmour: That certainly adds to our pleasure.
Long before we started discussions on this Bill I had talks with the licence holders in my constituency who are worried about the difficulties they experience in knowing whether people are of an age to be served with drink. The sort of publicity that has recently been given to lowering the age of consent in other matters shows what difficulty a licence holder has in assessing the age of persons who come into his premises.
It may well be that the provisions of Clause 71, which refer to Clauses 68(1), 68(5), 69(1) and 70, give the licence holder adequate protection. If that is so I should be glad to have the confirmation of the Secretary of State to that effect.

8.15 a.m.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) in moving the amendment identified the assurances that are already in the Bill. I confirm that the points he mentioned are dealt with and that the amendment is unnecessary.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 80

PENALTY FOR PERMITTING THIEVES, PROSTITUTES OR STOLEN GOODS IN LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 55, line 18, after 'prostitutes', insert:
'or persons convicted of an offence under section 4 or 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971'.
The amendment adds drug traffickers to the list of undesirable persons whom it is an offence for a licence holder knowingly to allow in his premises. It honours an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 69, in page 55, line 20, after second 'prostitutes', insert:
'or persons convicted of an offence under section 4 or 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 83

DRINKING IN PLACES OF PUBLIC REFRESHMENT, ETC., WHEN PUBLIC HOUSE IS CLOSED

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 55, line 41, at end insert:
'and any person who so consumes alcoholic liquor shall be guilty of an offence'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 91

DELIVERY OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR BY VEHICLES, ETC

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 58, line 18, leave out 'van, barrow, basket or other'.

No. 72, in line 32, leave out 'van, barrow, basket or other'.

No. 73, in line 41, leave out 'van, barrow, basket or other'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 97

CONSUMPTION OF, TAKING AWAY OF, AND SELLING LIQUOR FROM, OFF-SALE PREMISES.

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 61, line 24, leave out 'caravan, tent. shed'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Clause 101

RESTRICTION ON SALE OR SUPPLY OF LIQUOR IN PREMISES SUBJECT TO ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, in page 62, line 37, at end insert
'save only that nothing in this Act shall prohibit the offering of alcoholic liquor as a prize in premises with an entertainment licence where prize bingo is operated under the provisions of the Gaming Act 1968'.
A similar amendment was considered in Committee and the Minister advised the Committee to reject it on the ground that if it were accepted it would result in enormous gains being obtained by bingo winners at such establishments. He cited terrifying examples of persons who, having won large sums of money in the


form of vouchers, exchanged them for huge supplies of alcoholic liquor and left the premises in an undesirable fashion.
Since that debate, the Minister has received a letter—a copy of which has been sent to me—from the British Bingo Association, in which it is pointed out that the Minister—unwittingly no doubt—misled the Committee. The association states, first, that where prize bingo is being played the prizes have a value varying from 40p to 100p—not the high value suggested by the Minister. Secondly, under the Gaming Act 1968, the prizes are limited per person to 10p and the aggregate amount that can be taken way by the sale of chances in any one determination of winners is limited to a total of £5. The maximum value is, therefore, exceedingly small. Thirdly, the maximum number of participants is usually 50 and the game is played upon special fixed positions in a small area of the club. The game is, therefore, of a much more limited nature than the Minister suggested in his alarming speech in Committee, and I hope that he will reconsider the answer he gave.
Vouchers of relatively small value are exchanged for miniature bottles of alcoholic liquor. The problems suggested by the Minister do not arise, and on that basis I hope that he will reconsider what he said in Committee and, if he is not able to accept the amendment, at least give an assurance that the Government will consider the matter and determine speedily whether an amendment might be appropriately put forward.

Mr. Harry Ewing: It is true, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said, that in our debate in Committee, because of the rather sheltered life I lead, I was not clear about the difference between prize bingo and bingo, but I am bound to point out that the hon. Member, advised by the association and bingo caller to the Committee, was not able to keep me right. It is pleasant to hear him read out with great confidence the letter we have obviously both been sent. On the basis of the information received it would be proper for me to have another look at this.

Mr. Rifkind: On that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I

beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 114

POWER OF POLICE TO ENTER CLUBS

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 72, line 36, after 'may', insert
'after obtaining the permission of the club secretary or a person authorised to act on his behalf,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 78, in page 72, line 37, after 'club' insert
'without a warrant but only if he has reason to believe that the time that would elapse before such warrant could be obtained would prevent the enforcement of the provisions of this Act in said club'.
No. 80, in line 38, after 'constable' insert 'with such permission'.

Mr. Canavan: Amendment No. 77 and the consequential Amendment No. 80 have as their object restricting the right of the police to enter a club. The amendments are basically to preserve the status quo.
I have a constituency interest in this matter as I have many clubs in West Stirlingshire—miners' welfare clubs at Bannockburn, Plean, Fallin, Cowie and Kilsyth; the British Legion Club at Kilsyth and masonic clubs at Bannockburn, Denny, Kilsyth and Bridge of Allan; Kilsyth Rangers Club and Kilsyth Celtic Club; Cambusbarron and Bonnybridge social clubs; and works clubs such as the "Cork and Seal" at Bridge of Allan.
That is a great collection and you will realise, Mr. Speaker, that I have had representations from some of them about what they consider to be an invasion of the privacy of clubs as a result of Clause 114. I have also had representations from the Club and Institute Union.
To be fair I have also had representations the other way from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. I received a letter from Mr. Gordon, the Chairman of the Clackmannan and Stirlingshire Branch of the Licensed Trade Association, urging me to withdraw my amendment to delete Clause 114 because the association believes in liberalising all


drinking but believes in supervision, Including police supervision, anywhere where liquor is sold. In their opinion, that should include clubs.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I am a politician who sometimes compromises, and I decided not to object to your not selecting Amendment No. 76 which would have deleted the whole of Clause 114. I hope that that compromise will satisfy Mr. Gordon and his colleagues in the Clackmannan and Stirlingshirc Branch of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. I am prepared to accept Amendments Nos. 77 and 80 which provide a reasonable compromise.
It is important that hon. Members as well as members of the S.L.T.A. should recognise that there is a real difference between the pub and the club. The pub, as the name implies, is a public place, whereas the club, in theory at least, is an extension of the home. It has a registered membership and it is only registered members and signed-in guests who can enter the club, and consume liquor there. It is democratically managed by an elected committee who generally do a good job. They have an internal disciplinary system by which they can expel people who misbehave or ban people temporarily.
Many of the clubs do not merely concentrate on booze and bingo. Many provide welfare and cultural facilities. I cite the Bannockburn Miners' Welfare, my own club, as an example. They have indoor bowls and angling. I do not mean that the premises are used for angling but that there is an angling section within the club.
The premises have been used for football changing accommodation. The local authority has only recently provided accommodation of its own. The premises are also used for a pre-school play group. The miners' welfare committee organises the annual children's gala and old folks' meals are served there twice or three times a week. The old folks' Christmas treat is held there annually. These gaps in local authority services are filled by the community services provided by this club and others. The real distinction between clubs and pubs is not recognised in the clause.
There is more of a family atmosphere in clubs, but it could be destroyed if

the clause goes through without amendment. Many club members are concerned at the possibility of serious inroads into their privacy. Under existing legislation, I understand that a policeman may enter clubs only with a warrant or when in pursuit of a criminal. The Bill proposes a right of entry for policemen at any time and for any reason. A constable may take the names and addresses of any person on the premises if he believes, for example, that a club is being mismanaged or that an offence is being committed in the clubs. The constable can take the names and addresses of club members who have not committed any offence if he has reasonable ground for believing that an offence is being committed somewhere on the premises.
This could create serious embarrassment and harassment and club members would resist what could become regular police raids. It would certainly spoil the atmosphere if one took one's wife to a club for a quiet drink and was interrupted by uniformed policemen going round the tables asking for names and addresses.
More important, it would harm the relationship between the police and the community, which should be based on mutual friendship and trust. One of my drinking friends at the weekend is a local policeman and I know that he would resent having to follow his inspector's orders to go into the local club and take names and addresses. It would spoil the very good relationship that he has with the community. At 11 p.m. closing time, which would be the favourite time for police raids, policemen have enough to do looking for real criminals and villains elsewhere without snooping around clubs and public houses.
The Government said they had made a slight concession in Committee by providing that only uniformed police officers should have the right of entry, but this makes it even worse. At least plainclothes officers could look relatively inconspicuous. The presence of uniformed policemen would destroy the whole family atmosphere in clubs.
Under my amendment, police officers who had a reasonable suspicion that something illegal was going on in a club


would be able to enter with the permission of the secretary or a person authorised to act on his behalf or with a warrant. A club's registration could be cancelled if there were proven abuses of the law. I understand that such abuses are very infrequent. In 1972, the number of reported abuses was 15; in 1973, the figure was four; and in 1974, it was 13.
8.30 a.m.
Finally I would refer to some of the comments when the 1961 Licensing Act for England and Wales was going through Parliament. The then Minister of State at the Home Office said that one of the most valued privileges of clubs was freedom from police entry without a warrant and that it was a privilege that should be retained.
When the matter was raised in the House of Lords the then Lord Chancellor, opposing a motion seeking to introduce the right of police entry into clubs, said that the Government could not accept the principle of entry by the police without warrant into club premises at any time, a proposal inherent in the motion. He said that the vast majority of opinion of all parties accepted that to allow the police to enter club premises at any time except for the limited purpose covered by the Bill would be unjustifiable interference with private liberties.
That was in respect of the Bill covering England and Wales. It is interesting to note, too, that, in respect of the Scottish Licensing Bill of 1962, the right of the police to enter clubs was defeated by the vote of Parliament. That was at the time of a Conservative Government. It would be ironic if a Labour Government in 1976 were to interfere with clubs, many of whose members are ordinary working people who would deeply resent this invasion of their privacy. I support this amendment and the consequential amendment and ask for support from all sides of the House.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) conjured up a terrifying picture of uniformed policemen, jackboots and all, invading indoor angling, including the kiddies' lounges, in his constituency. No doubt the local police force in his constituency might view with some alarm the inter-

pretation which the hon. Gentleman placed before the House should the clause go through in its present form.
The crux of the problem is based on the simple fact that there are two quite different types of club. There are the clubs to which the hon. Member for West Stiriingshire referred, which are completely legitimate clubs, anxious to observe the letter as well as the spirit of the law. But we know that there are equally other clubs which have largely grown up as a result of the many alterations in our licensing laws. They are clubs in the technical sense of the word but in essence they are drinking establishments which have grown up simply to provide alcohol. It is that type of club in respect of which the Government rightly wish to exercise greater control.
The question is how best this can be done in a way which will not jeopardise the legitimate interests of the proper clubs which do not seek or wish to break the law. For this reason I have put down Amendment No. 78, which seeks to provide a compromise, a middle ground, to try to deal with the problem which has been recognised by the Government. That amendment would allow a police officer in uniform to enter a club without a warrant only if he had reason to believe that the time that would elapse before such a warrant could be obtained would prevent the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill in that club. In other words, unless a police constable had reason to believe that the time which would elapse would frustrate his efforts, he would not be entitled to enter a club unless he had obtained a warrant.
That is a safeguard, because it would protect the position of the private, respectable clubs where a police officer would have little reason to believe that an offence had been, or was being, committed and even less that his enforcement of the law would be frustrated by the need to obtain a warrant. In practice, those clubs would have nothing whatever to fear.
Although, obviously, the amendment is not ideal, it seeks to meet the legitimate problem that the Government have described but without creating the very real sense of grievance and injustice felt by many of the respectable clubs. Therefore, if the House does not wish to accept


the amendment of the hon. Member, I hope that it will give the alternative amendment serious consideration. In some ways it is preferable in that it helps to recognise the problem which arises through the existence of two separate types of club.

Mr. David Steel: At 8.30 in the morning, after an all-night sitting, some strange alliances emerge. I agree both with the hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) and with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). I regard these amendments as very important. If the amendment to delete Clause 114 had been selected—I do not complain that it was not, because it was fully debated in Committee—I would have supported it.
Some weeks ago I had a meeting with the Hawick Federation of Clubs. I must declare an interest as a member of three clubs in my constituency. In one town, membership of the Hawick Federation is 7,700. It impressed upon me the case for the maintenance of the distinction between a club and a pub. The starting point is that a club has control over its membership in a way that a pub does not have over its customers. Moreover, in a town like Hawick, if a member is suspended from a club because of bad behaviour, his name is circulated among the federation, so that he is kept out of other clubs as well. That is a strong discipline which does not exist among the pubs in the town.
The clubs are very varied in character. I have even had correspondence on this issue from the Selkirk Conservative Club and the Innerleithen Unionist Club. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) chastised the Church earlier for having written to him on only one matter. The only correspondence I have had with those two clubs has been over the matter of drinking. No doubt they are interested in other matters, and I do not blame them for expressing concern on this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are your clubs?"] My three clubs are the Galashiels Liberal Club, the Hawick Liberal Club and the Jedburgh Liberal Club.
Clubs have a real community function. Since I have been prompted, I would point out that the Galashiels Liberal Club has just won a prize as the ace of

clubs for raising a record amount to help fight muscular dystrophy—£1,500 in three weeks. This real club atmosphere in a community is of value, but the hon. Member for Pentlands put his finger on the point, which was the answer to what the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire said about the debates in 1962.
Having read the Committee debates, I accept that there has been a tremendous growth in recent years in clubs existing for the purpose of drinking rather than for purposes of good fellowship. If that is a problem, it is a criticism of the licensing system itself. It is entirely wrong that because of this development in some parts of the country good, long-established, bona fide clubs should be penalised by the introduction of legislation like this when the real problem lies in controlling the mushrooming of clubs which are not genuine, if the Government feel that they exist.
The police have adequate powers to enter a club if they feel that an offence has been committed. Although I pay tribute to the management of most of the long-established clubs in my constituency, sadly in the last 10 or 11 years I have known of one or two cases of prosecution, one for transgression under the betting and gaming laws. Another concerned the hours of drinking, and in that case the club lost its licence. I therefore do not pretend that there are not occasions when a club falls under bad voluntary management. My point is proved by the fact that the police were able to take action. No case has been made out by the Government showing that the police are powerless, because they have used their existing powers.
Clause 86 defines the powers of the police to enter unlicensed premises where they suspect that alcoholic liquor may be being consumed. We find spelt out there much more generous treatment of public premises. A warrant is required, and so on. I see no reason why that wording should not have been applied to the clubs. If it had been, it would have left the law largely as it is now.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has raised a serious matter. If this kind of measure is introduced without serious thought being given to it by the House, it may result in a deterioration in relations


between the police and the public. People believe that if they go to their clubs and behave properly they should not expect uniformed police to come in. This is a new departure which does not exist in the law of England. I am all for pioneering in the law of Scotland, but this is the wrong way to pioneer.
I think that the House would be well advised to support Amendment No. 77 or, if that were to be defeated, Amendment No. 78. That is the course I propose to follow.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: I intervene in the debate in the full knowledge that I am not a Scottish Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency and did not serve on the Standing Committee. Having, however, sat through the long hours of the night and listened intently to the debates on the multiplicity of amendments which have been moved, I wonder why we cannot have the law of universality applied to licensing laws throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that everybody would be a good deal happier if that were the position.
I hope that in the circumstances my lion. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Canavan) and the rest of my right hon. and hon. Friends will not form the opinion that I am fishing in prohibited waters. I know that when my hon. Friend is not fishing he is frequently mending his nets. That is his business.
I am concerned about Clause 114 and the serious implication contained therein regarding the automatic right of entry of the police into clubs, but more especially working men's clubs. My hon. Friend has properly and justifiably gone to some lengths to point out that a club is not only a respectable place catering for respectable people and in which there are very few cases of drunkenness, but that it is frequently the hub—indeed, the very axis—around which community life revolves in many places, and certainly in small villages.
I became even more concerned when my hon. Friend referred to the discussions he had had with representatives of the Club and Institute Union Ltd. The House should bear in mind that just

over 4,000 clubs are affiliated to the union—I stand to be corrected—and that 100 of them are in Scotland.
It is within my knowledge and surely that of the majority, if not all, of my right hon. and hon. Friends that, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Pebbles (Mr. Steel), the clubs are invariably well managed. They have a high degree and a well-formed code of discipline. When members fall from grace—for example, if they are guilty of serious misdemeanour—the club management committee has power under the rules to exclude them from membership. That applies throughout the federation clubs in the areas concerned.
The question of the automatic right of entry by the police has always been vigorously resisted by the Club and Institute Union Ltd.—certainly by the member clubs throughout England. If there is a fracas or disturbance in a club, the police should enter only at the request of the club secretary, chairman or other responsible member of the committee acting on behalf of the management. That is a fundamental right of members of working-men's clubs. I fear that if the amendment is not accepted there may be a departure which will be strongly resisted when we discuss the future licensing laws of England. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consult the officials of the union to discover their attitude to the amendment.

8.45 a.m.

Mr. Monro: A number of eloquent speeches were made in Committee on this issue. Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), I have received a number of letters from clubs, including some from his constituency. I also received some from Lanarkshire, Perthshire and all points on the Scottish compass. The clubs which I have personally visited are extremely well run. One of the advantages of belonging to a clubs is that a committee vets applicants for membership in order to maintain a high standard.
At its conference in Blackpool in the spring, the Club and Institute Union Ltd. was emphatically against the police being given the right to enter clubs without a warrant. In Committee we were disappointed at the Minister's attitude, although he has tabled his promised amendments


which establish that police officers must be in uniform. In the light of the evidence, I support the amendments which would prevent police from entering a private club without a warrant for that purpose.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Like many hon. Members I have received representations, and I suppose that I should declare an interest as a member of two clubs in my constituency. I have received representations from the Club and Institute Union Ltd. about the entry of police officers to licensed premises.
The burden of the union's argument is that a club is so private that it is an extension of an individual's home—but that is too tight a definition. It is not simply that many clubs which have grown up are merely drinking places. Most clubs provide entertainment. There is a growth in the number of clubs which began as purely drinking associations, while at the same time even established clubs are extending their range of activities and providing more entertainment. The balance of the argument is shifting towards the club being an extension of entertainment rather than an extension of the home.
We cannot necessarily rest on the previous arguments about privacy. I believe that the fact that a uniformed constable has the right of entry at any time could well, in certain circumstances, improve relations with the management. We all rightly have a healthy disrespect for the police in that they represent a kind of authoritarianism which some of us suspect might be used in a way alien to the true purposes of the police. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) grimaces from a sedentary position, but I think that that is a common feeling.
Having considered all the arguments, I believe that on balance it is probably better to support Amendment No. 77.

Mr. Harry Ewing: It is a wise Minister who knows when he is on a loser, and I know that I am on a loser now. If all the amendments are withdrawn, we shall give an undertaking to reinstate the original position. I think that that would be the best course.

Mr. William Ross: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I express the hope that he will appreciate that we have heard a great deal about the Guest Committee

and the Clayson Committee tonight? It was the recommendation of both those committees that this should be done. No arguments have been heard tonight in support of what was said by the Clayson Committee, the Law Society of Scotland, the Association of County Councils in Scotland—

Mr. Fairgrieve: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the Minister a question after the hon. Gentleman has sat down.

Mr. Ross: I was asking my hon. Friend to take account of those views, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am still entitled to speak in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course the right hon Gentleman is entitled to speak, when he is called, but I understood that he said "Before my hon. Friend sits down". In that case, he must be treated the same as every other Member.

Mr. Harry Ewing: We have taken account of what Guest and Clayson said and of what the Club and Institute Union Ltd. said. We had a long meeting with the CIU at St. Andrew's House.
I think that I have the sense of the House, and for that reason I propose to proceed as I have suggested.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he make it absolutely certain that what he is saying means that we return to the situation in which a warrant is required before police may enter a private club?

Mr. Ewing: That is the position.

Mr. Dalyell: My constituent Mr. William Meikle, of The Rendezvous in Bathgate, who occupies the position of vice-president, Mr. James Boyle and others in West Lothian have said that the one thing they really want pressed is opposition to this amendment. If the clubs have nothing to worry about and are doing everything right—and this is the question the publicans ask—why do they feel that they should be treated differently from those who run public houses? That is a question that has to be answered at some stage.

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his generous and realistic concession. I am only sorry that we do not have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kulmamock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. William Ross: The Scottish Trades Union Congress took the view that if clubs were being properly conducted within the law they could have no possible objection to the police being given the right of entry. There is a considerable list of people in support of the Government's original position who have not been mentioned yet.

Mr. Canavan: One could equally argue that a man sitting at home with his wife and family need have nothing to fear from a proposal to give the police power to enter his home without a warrant, but he would still resent such a proposal. That is the logic of the argument of my right hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian.

Mr. McCartney: Have not successive Ministers in successive Governments stated that they were not required to accept the recommendations of such bodies?

Mr. Canavan: That is perfectly true.
I should like to thank the Minister and Members of all parties, with the exception of the SNP, which has not given a view on the subject so far, and my colleagues south of the border, who are naturally involved too, for their support. I conclude by asking my hon. Friend to give me a straightforward "Yes" or "No" to my question: will he now give a 100 per cent. guarantee that an amendment will be introduced in the Lords to restore the status quo—not the original proposals of the Bill but the present position as it exists in law—in respect of the rights of the police to enter clubs?

Mr. Harry Ewing: For the third time, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall reintroduce the status quo.

Mr. Canavan: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 124

LOCAL AUTHORITY PREMISES

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 76, line 37, after 'may', insert
'subject to the approval of the sheriff'.
I understand that with this we are to discuss the related amendment, No. 85, in page 76, line 37, leave out 'any' and insert
'an entertainments licence but no other licence'.
Clause 124 is a completely new departure in licensing law as it seeks to repeal the restrictions of previous legislation that in effect prevented a local authority from granting a licence to itself for the conduct of licensed premises.
We had a very full debate on this subject in Committee, but I should like to restate the basic issue. Many of us believe that it is positively undesirable that a local authority should be both judge and jury in its own case. The licensing board will consist entirely of persons who are elected councillors. Therefore it is wrong in principle, dangerous in practice, and likely to create a harmful impression on the public if a local authority makes an application to the board for a licence to conduct licensed premises. There is an essential conflict of interests here.
9.0 a.m.
We know that the Bill makes many specific provisions that no one is entitled to sit on a licensing board if he has any direct or indirect interest in an application to that board. But Clause 124 is an exception to that necessary and desirable rule. It will give the local authority a privileged position in society in that it will be able to apply to a board consisting entirely of its own members for a licence.
In supporting this provision in the Bill, the Minister argued that it was necessary for a local authority to have this right to provide licensed premises for itself, its own staff, or institutions run by it in matters covered by entertainment licences. As this was the only argument put forward by the Minister we have put down an amendment to restrict this right on the


basis of that qualification. The Minister's argument would be fully covered by restricting the type of licence granted by a local authority to itself to entertainment licences.
Amendment 84 is an additional protection in that it provides that the granting of licences should be subject to the approval of the sheriff.
I would argue that in a situation where a local authority that this privileged position, as far as its own licence applications are concerned, there should be not just an appeal by another party to the sheriff but an automatic requirement that he should consider whether the granting of the licence is justified.
This is the old principle of justice being seen to be done as well as actually being done. The public would feel grieved if they thought that a local authority was granting itself a licence—particularly if it were a contentious licence, or one which might be objected to. Undoubtedly members of the public would feel grievously prejudiced knowing that the application for a licence had gone from local councillors to a licensing board consisting of the same local councillors. That is not a desirable impression to make on the public.
I am not seeking to denigrate local authorities. This amendment is necessary for the protection of local authorities themselves so that there can be no questioning of their integrity and no claiming that they have a privileged position in society in respect of licensing. In its present form, the clause raises such objections.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment to restrict a local authority's applications to those circumstances which the Minister himself said were the only circumstances provided for when he introduced this clause in the first place.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am not prepared to accept the amendment, but if the hon. Member will withdraw it I will consider which types of licence can be granted to local authorities.
The amendment suggested is far too restrictive, and we certainly cannot agree to licences being granted by the sheriff when there is already a built-in appeal to the sheriff.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the Minister for that generous offer. It is generally accepted by everyone including the Minister that it is highly unlikely that a local authority will apply for a public house licence, but nothing in the Bill would prevent it from doing so. I am grateful that the Minister has offered to consider whether there could be a restriction on the kind of licence for which local authorities can apply. That would meet the legitimate objective without creating potential prejudice, which we are anxious to avoid.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 128

TRIAL OF OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 78, line 16 leave out '7(2), 7(3)'.—[Mr. Milian.]

Clause 131

TEMPERANCE AREAS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 78, line 40, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.
The effect of the amendment would be to reduce from five to three years the period after which the local authority could resolve that a limiting or no-licence resolution had effect. We have decided to abandon the present legislation in respect of local polls for either limiting or no-licence resolutions, and the Bill provides that there should be transitional provisions. The transitional provisions in the clause freeze the situation for five years, but, following that, nothing happens until the local authority passes a resolution.
We have considered the matter again since Committee stage and I now believe that, given other safeguards in the clause, a freeze period of three years is adequate to allow for preparation for adjustment to a new situation. Even after the three years there is no automatic movement. A resolution by the local authority concerned is needed.
I have some of these resolutions in force in my constituency and I therefore know something of the feeling on these matters in the past. We are abandoning that system, however, and the point of principle has been conceded. Therefore,


the three-year freeze period would be adequate, and I hope that it is acceptable to the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In his brief explanation of the amendment the Secretary of State gave no reason for the change embodied in the amendment. Has he had representations on the matter? Has he received letters? Has there been great protest in his constituency? Are the people pressing to get rid of their "dry" and limitation areas as quickly as possible? Let me suggest that there has been no such pressure.
There are a small number of areas in Scotland where restrictions are imposed because of veto polls. They are listed at the end of the Clayson Report. Some of these are "dry" areas. Half of my constituency is "dry". That does not mean that there is no drinking, only that there are no licensed premises apart from clubs or a licensed restaurant if the need for it is proven.
There have been arguments against veto polls for many years, and there has grown up a remarkable organisation called the Licensed Trade Veto Poll Defence Fund which was set up to defend publicans against veto polls. Under Scottish law the people in any area can get together and vote "dry" or limitation. To secure that there must be at least a 35 per cent. poll and a majority of those voting in favour. There have been few veto polls of late.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that in this small number of areas it is looked upon as a valuable safeguard for the community. We have heard a great deal from the Government about wanting to extend democracy. We do not hear so much about that from moderate Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), but some of the wilder Left-wingers have talked about the need to extend democracy. They want to bring back democracy to the people and let them play a greater part in their own destiny. That is what the veto poll was all about. It gave people the right to decide whether they want to have no pubs, a few pubs, a limitation arrangement or a straight "wet" condition in their area.
I appreciate that there was unfairness and injustice. For example, a pub-

lican might have said that he wanted to spend £100,000 on building a new public house in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. That would have been a substantial investment. The money might have been secured, only to find that there was a veto poll and that the public house had to be closed. That meant that the investment was lost. There is no doubt that that was of real concern to those who wanted to make investments by building public houses and licensed pre-mires. That is why a splinter organisation set up a veto poll defence fund. The fund was established so that if there were a veto poll in any area an organised campaign could be mounted and some compensation paid to those who might be affected. That was a form of insurance organised by a reputable organisation.
Substantial sums have been put into the fund. What will happen now that the fund is to be abolished? No doubt the money will have to go somewhere. I hope that it will be used for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I hope that it will be directed to the maintenance of their health and welfare. The Secretary of State may know something about the fund. It would be good to know where the money is going. I know that I have no right to ask about that as it is not my money or money that should belong to the people of Cathcart.
Under the Bill the Government are abolishing veto polls as from the enactment of the Bill. That means that the threat will be removed. No longer will a publican think of building a giant pub somewhere in Scotland only to be faced with the threat of a veto poll. As from the enactment of the Bill the fund will be closed down.
In the ward of Graigton there were changes from "dry" to limitation to "wet". That was a classic area about which people talked about. They said that it was ridiculous to change in that way. It was said that the publicans did not know where they welt or how they stood.
That threat has been removed because there will be no more veto polls as from the enactment of the Bill. All that remains to be resolved is what happens to


the areas that are now "dry" or limitation. The Government proposals envisage that on a certain date we shall open the "dry" areas and the limitation areas to the great gold rush of publicans. They will rush into the "dry" areas to have a profitable and, no doubt a happy time. That will happen. The only question is when it will take place.
I have an interest as half of my constituency is "dry" and the other half is limitation. The old Cathcart Ward is a "dry" area. That means that unless one is a member of the Labour Party, an ex-Service man who can apply for membership of the British Legion or a bowls player it is difficult to get a drink in the ward.
There is limitation in the Langside Ward. There is one real hotel, not one of the funny hotels that have been mentioned. There are also some licensed grocers and one pleasant eating house that has a bar of a sort.
Those two parts of my constituency will be opened up by the Bill. Obviously I am concerned. The previous Secretary of State for Scotland—I had a high regard for him and I told him so publicly and privately—accepted that we had a problem in such areas and he wanted to do something about it. I understand that it was largely because of his good nature and his interest in places and people that he introduced a five-year clause whereby people in these areas would have their position protected for at least five years, and thereafter it was up to the local council or licensing board to decide what happened.
9.15 a.m.
I was not happy with that because I wanted to keep the veto polls, and when we discussed it in Committee I moved a splendid amendment, saying that we should have a temperance poll in various areas and basically continue the provision of the temperance poll. Unfortunately, the majority of the Committee did not vote for my amendment. I had the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) but there were not many other Members who supported me.
This was a valuable debate, because the Under-Secretary of State gave me some assurances which not only pleased me but helped me, as I think he would

agree, to become a lot more co-operative—even more than I had been—in regard to the passing of the Bill. The Minister was certainly very kind. He said:
As a result of our consideration of this very difficult problem—because it affects people—we decided that we would introduce certain safeguards. The first of these safeguards was that there would be a five-year period. There would be no veto polls for that five-year period but, equally, in that period there would be no possibility of a dry area becoming wet.
My constituents were very pleased to note this, and I took it as a gesture of good will on the Minister's part. I think he will agree that I became even more co-operative in the Committee. The Minister added, later in his speech:
To summarise, we have built in safeguards which we consider adequate to meet the changing circumstances.
When he was asked about it, the Minister said:
I strongly suspect that the Committee is of the mind that we have got this matter right.… I believe that it would be in the best interest of future licensing legislation if we were to adopt the course defined in the Bill."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 1st July 1976; c. 798–800.]
My constituents were very happy, and because of that I entered the next sitting of the Committee in a frame of mind which I think the Government will accept was far more conducive to co-operation than previously. Not only had I to convince the Government but also my hon. Friends, who were extremely kind to me, because they had received representations from the licensed trade and the brewers.
My hon. Friends considered each representation on its merits. There was no question of Tories acting as rubber stamps for the brewers. Such arguments are quite untrue and unfounded. We did not act as rubber stamps for the licensed trade, which was asking for a reduction from five years to three. An amendment was therefore tabled, more as a probe than anything else, but when I discussed it privately with my hon. Friends they were very kind and understanding and agreed to withdraw it. We then discussed my amendment instead, and the Minister made a splendid speech.
Now we have a situation in which my constituents will be very unhappy indeed, because, having—

Mr. McCartney: We have already had the referendum.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that we had a veto poll in Cathcart, when there was a council there, and in that poll 12,000 people voted. The licensed trade was strongly urging them to vote "wet". As far as I recall, 10,000 voted "dry" and 2,000 "wet". That was a clear expression of the people of Cathcart, which includes the largest housing estate in Europe. The majority of the people in the housing estate were in favour of keeping the area "dry". The views of the people were quite clear, and they were very happy indeed with the result. They were also very happy at the Minister's speech.
But the Minister has not been very helpful, co-operative or friendly towards me today. He has stated that the Government, having reconsidered the question, have changed their mind. It is something which affects only a very small number of areas in Scotland and they are all clearly defined. The Minister now says that three years are enough, rather than five.
Representations were made by the licensed trade saying that it wanted the period reduced from five to three years. We received no reasons from the Minister why this period was thought to be enough, nor were there explanations why five years was thought to be the right period. However, the Secretary of State said that he had reconsidered the matter and proposed a period of three years. What is the appropriate period?
If we change a "dry" area to a "wet" area, as the Government propose, a major upheaval is involved. Five years is the minimum period in which we may plan for such a change. It will be a major change. We shall not like it. The Minister may say that the local council will protect the local people. However, the people in Cathcart do not always think that the local council necessarily protects them to the fullest degree. The Glasgow District Council does not have a unique record among Scottish local authorities of paying regard to the interests of areas on the periphery of the city. Sometimes my constituents have been unhappy about its decisions. They have the impression that it does not look upon Cathcart with the same concern and regard as it looks upon other areas

of the city. We do not look upon that as any protection.
It would be sensible to leave the period of five years in the Bill. I shall be much happier if the temperance areas remain as they are for all time, unless the people vote for a change. We may do away with temperance polls if they are considered a threat. But are they a threat? How many temperance polls have there been recently? How many publicans have been affected? How many pubs have been closed? Until now this process had developed well and logically in Scotland. Matters had settled down nicely.
This proposal will mean a change in my constituency. One of the other areas affected will be Craigton, which the Secretary of State represents. I do not know Craigton. Although I do not wish to go into details, one of my friends was a councillor in that area. I gained the impression from him that the local people valued their position as inhabitants of a limitation area. It is now proposed that the period should be three years. Has the Secretary of State any evidence from the people in the area affected that they regard three years as adequate and that they are opposed to five years? As he proposes a major change, there should be some evidence. It is all very well to say that the brewers, the licensed trade and county council associations think that three years are enough, but what about the people? The Under-Secretary said that we had to be careful as the proposal would affect the people. What evidence is there from the people? Has there been any indication from the people who live in these limitation or "dry" areas that they feel that three years are preferable to five? I suggest that there is not a shred of evidence that that is so.
The amendment will mean a fundamental change in my constituency. Mine is the only constituency which is totally covered by limitation or "dry" areas. Neither my constituents nor I are looking forward to the implementation of this proposal. We felt that the five-year period, which the Secretary of State first offered, was the minimum that was reasonable in all the circumstances. I hope that the Minister will now reconsider his position. I hope he will say that the Government will not at this stage of the Bill cause unnecessary conflict.
We accept what the Under-Secretary said in Committee. He said that he had given careful consideration to this difficult problem and had arrived at the decision that five years was the right period.
I hope that the Minister will answer my specific questions and say whether those who live in these areas have expressed any view whether three years—not five years—is the right period.

Mr. Millan: We are dealing with a simple matter on which I gather the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcant (Mr. Taylor) disagrees with me. I can put up with that. In my area I dare say that those of my constituents who voted originally for the limitation resolution would like it to continue for as long as possible and those who voted against it would like it removed as soon as possible.
We have to make a judgment. Three years is a reasonable transitional arrangement, particularly as at the end of that period nothing happens automatically. There is a requirement for a resolution of the district council.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. JAMES HAMILTON and Mr. IAN CAMPBELL were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 78, line 44, leave out 'consult with' and insert'obtain the agreement of'.
This amendment is crucially linked with Amendment No. 87. It introduces the safeguarding provisions which the Government said that they were introducing. I am bitterly disappointed that I could not get support for my previous amendment. That is because only a few areas are affected. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Grimond) is not here. Two small islands in his constituency are similarly affected and if he had been able to be here he would have supported me.
Clause 131(3) reads as follows:
Before making any resolution as mentioned in subsection (2) above,"—

which would effectively do away with the "dry" status or the limited status—
the district or islands council shall consult with the community council or councils for the area concerned.
I propose that it should obtain the agreement of the community councils for the area.
Community councils have virtually no executive power. They do not have rights. They have only power to look at matters and to be consulted. It might be argued that community councils are not representative of all the people in the area but they are about the closest we can get to a representative body.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pro-van (Mr. Brown) might suggest the tenants' association, but in my experience a tenants' association would not necessarily be representative of the people in the area. Residents' associations do not necessarily represent anyone. They consist of a few activists. In Parliament we are activists, so we know what that means—five or six people meeting in a room and saying that they speak on behalf of 20,000 people. That is not necessarily—

9.30 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member always claims that—

Mr. Taylor: I think the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is not showing the objective approach one should expect of the Leader of a party. In a rather jaundiced way he is giving the impression that all he wants is to get to his bed as quickly as he can. The leader of a party has the obligation of having to wait up late at night and to consider important matters. If the hon. Member is one day the Prime Minister he will undoubtedly have—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to "obtain the agreement of".

Mr. Taylor: We have these community councils. They were set up under Scottish local government reform. That was one of the many reforms introduced by the Heath Administration. They introduced a large number of reforms. Some of my colleagues believe that there were too many. One was local government reform, and in that we set up districts and regions which were larger than under previous local government arrangements. It


was thought that there should be local bodies to represent local opinion at local level, and so we set up community councils. This Government, in this clause, have shown their resolution to make an area "wet" or "dry" unless it consults the community councils.
If we are to encourage a democratic interest in their own affairs, it is essential that the agreement of the community councils should be obtained before a resolution is made, otherwise people in another locality will make a decision for that locality. I hope that the Government will enable my amendment to be made. They have already done a great deal of damage to my constituency. It would be wrong and shameful if this arrangement to ensure that a decision is made in agreement with the community councils were not included in the Bill.
The number of times we write into legislation a duty to consult causes me great concern. We do this in many Bills at present. I can remember the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) speaking a great deal about the Central Development Agency and its duty to consult everybody. Many people are getting a little muddled about consultation and what it means. It is in no way a guarantee of justice, and I should like to think that in this Bill we shall try to have some justice.
What is wrong with the community council, representative of the people in the area, having the right to say "Yes" or "No" to a major proposal which affects the people and the way of life of the community in that area?
The Minister, who has done me badly and my constituency ill, should make a small concession at this late stage. Frankly I feel that on the Committee I was misled, probably largely through my own fault. I am basically a trusting person and I thought that something would emerge for my constituency from the Bill. I am not accusing the Secretary of State of treachery but because I am a trusting person I took his words as a firm declaration. I ask him to make amends by a small and reasonable amendment which will affect only a tiny

number of areas in Scotland but which will undo some of the damage done by the Government's proposals.

Mr. Millan: The clause provides for consultation with community councils, which is the right relationship in a matter of this sort. The amendment would take the decision on this subject out of the hands of the district council and give it to the community council. It would mean that the community council had a veto over the local authority.
I do not want to go into the history of community councils—they are only now being set up—but that was not the relationship intended in the 1973 Act and the amendment would be incompatible with the relationship that was intended. I hope that full account will be taken of the community council's views, but the decision must be for the district council.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 132

CURRENCY OF FINAL LICENSING CERTIFICATES

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 79, line 22, leave out 'Applicants for certificates' and insert
'The chairman of the licensing court'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take Government Amendment No. 90.

Mr. Ewing: Amendment 89 has been put down to solve a problem, foreseen by some of the larger licensing authorities, of having large numbers of licence holders gathered together in one place to draw lots. We decided that it would simplify matters if the chairman drew the lots instead of the applicants.
Amendment 90 has been put down to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) in Committee. It will allow those licensing authorities whose numbers of licence holders are not sufficient to justify a division into nine groups to divide them into fewer group if they so desire.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 90, in page 79, line 27, after 'groups' insert 'or less'.[Mr. Millan.]

New Schedule

'SUNDAY OPENING OF PREMISES IN RESPECT OF WHICH A PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCE OR REFRESHMENT LICENCE IS OR WILL BE IN FORCE AND SUNDAY RESTRICTION ORDERS RELATING TO LICENSED PREMISES

PART I

Applications for Sunday opening

1. Applications may be made to a licensing board in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule for permission to open premises on Sundays as mentioned in section 54(2) of this Act, and any such application is referred to in this Schedule as "an application for Sunday opening".

2. The holder of a public house licence or a refreshment licence in respect of any premises may make an applicaion for Sunday opening of the premises, and any such application shall be in such form as may be prescribed, shall be completed and signed by the applicant or his agent, and shall be lodged with the clerk of the licensing board within whose area the premises are situated not later than five weeks before the first day of the meeting of the board at which the application is to be considered.

3. The clerk of a licensing board shall, not later than three weeks before the first day of the meeting of the board at which the applications are to be considered, cause to be published in one or more newspapers circulating in the area of the board a list of all competing applications for Sunday opening made to the board under paragraph 2 above.

4. The list mentioned in paragraph 3 above shall specify—

(a) the name, designation and address of the applicant;
(b) the address of the premises in respect of which the application is made;
(c) the first day of the meeting of the licensing board at which the application is to be considered.

5. It shall be competent for any person mentioned in section 17(1) of this Act to object in relation to any application made under paragraph 2 above, and the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of that section shall apply in relation to such objections.

6. A licensing board shall refuse an application made under paragraph 2 above if it is satisfied that the opening and use on a Sunday of the premises to which the application relates would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality, but otherwise shall grant the application.

7. The consequences of the refusal of an application under paragraph 6 above in respect of any premises is that there shall be no permitted hours in those premises on a Sunday.

8. An applicant may appeal to the sheriff against a decision of a licensing board to refuse an application under paragraph 6 above.

9. Any competent objector who appeared at the hearing of any application made under paragraph 2 above may appeal to the sheriff

against a decision of the licensing board to grant the application.

10. A licensing board shall not within two years of its refusal of an application made under paragraph 2 above in respect of any premises enterttain another such application in respect of those premises.

11. An application for a new public house licence or refreshment licence under section 11 of this Act shall state whether the applicant is making an application for Sunday opening, and if an application for Sunday opening is made, the clerk of the licensing board shall include in the list mentioned in section 13(1) of this Act information to that effect.

12. Paragraphs 5 to 9 above shall apply in relation to an application for Sunday opening under paragraph 11 above as they apply in relation to an application for Sunday opening under paragraph 2 above.

PART II

Sunday restriction orders

13. Where on a complaint being made to a licensing hoard by any person mentioned in section 17(1) of this Act, the hoard is satisfied that the use of licensed premises is the cause of undue disturbance or public nuisance having regard to the way of life in the community in the locality on a Sunday, the board may make an order (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as a "Sunday restriction order"), and the effect of the Sunday restriction order is that there shall be no permitted hours on Sunday for such period as may be specified in the order or that the permitted hours on Sunday shall be reduced by such time and for such period as may be so specified.

14. The provisions of subsections (4) to (6) of section 33 of this Act shall, with any necessary modifications apply in relation to a Sunday restriction order as they apply in relation to the suspension of a licence.

15. The licensing board may make a Sunday restriction order in relation to individual premises or in relation to a group of premises in respect of which the same type of licence is held.

16. Subsections (4) to (8) of section 65 of this Act shall apply in relation to a Sunday restriction order as they apply in relation to a restriction order under that section.'.—[Mr. Milian.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed schedule, (a) in paragraph 6 after 'locality', insert
'or is opposed by the residents of the locality'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor].

Amendment to the proposed schedule negatived.

Schedule agreed to and added to the Bill.

Schedule 4

PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES AGAINST PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 91, leave out the items relating to section 7(2) and (3).

"Section (Occasional permissions) (3)
Contravention of condition of occasional permission.
—
—
£100.


Section (Occasional permissions) (6)
Failure to ensure observance of provisions relating to conduct of licensed premises
—
—
£100"

—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 96, column 2, in the item relating to section 78(2), leave out 'and disorderly behaviour' and insert:
'drunkenness, or riotous or disorderly conduct'.
This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 99, in page 96, column 2, in the item relating to section 80, after 'prostitutes' insert 'etc'.—[Mr.Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 97, column 2, in the item relating to section 86, after 'constable' insert 'or obstructing his entry'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105.

Mr. Millan: These are all drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 101, in page 97, column 2, in the item relating to section 87(1)(a), leave out 'Permitting on-consumption of' and insert 'Selling or supplying'.

No. 102, in page 98, column 2, in the item relating to section 90(b), after 'Bartering' insert 'or selling'.

No. 103, in page 98, column 2, in the item relating to section 91(2), after 'Carrying' insert 'or delivering'.

No. 104, in page 100, column 2, in the item relating to section 100(a) after 'Trafficking' insert 'in'.

No. 105, in page 101, column 2, in the item relating to section 101(1), after 'in' insert 'or supplying'.—[Mr. Milan.]

No. 95, in column 2 in the item relating to section 31(2), leave out 'or wine'

No. 96, in page 91, after the item relating to section 35, inesert the following items—

9.40 a.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I did not intend to say anything about the Bill at this stage and I hope that the House will excuse me if I do not talk about its merits. I would simply say that we now have a Bill with, from my point of view, one major defect in respect of Sunday drinking, but in other respects it makes important and useful changes in the licensing law of Scotland.
I would congratulate all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have stayed throughout this long sitting to enable us to complete Report and Third Reading. I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members, whatever their views. I am grateful to them for staying and for the friendly way in which the debates have been carried on in spite of our differences of opinion.

9.41 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would also like to say a few brief words. I feel that the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill is a testimony to the endurance of all hon. Members who took part. I would also like to thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which the Bill has been handled. I would extend my personal thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has carried the burden of the Bill through Committee and Report. I also particularly welcome the way in which the Government have responded to amendments put forward by the Opposition. I feel that we now have a better Bill than it was when we first considered it and I would commend it to the House, in spite of that part of it which I know the Secretary of State feels is a defect.
It would be a mistake if we thought of the Bill as providing only for the


class pubs, open seven days a week. I opening of pubs on a Sunday. That would be a disservice to Dr. Clayson and his colleagues. Just as Dr. Clayson and his colleagues tried to produce a balanced report—and we must view that report in its totality—so our job is to view the Bill in its totality. There are many good aspects to the Bill, quite apart from the fact that individuals may have certain reservations about particular parts of it.
I particularly welcome it because I feel that it is a liberalising measure. I hope that when it comes into effect in Scotland it will fulfil the aspirations of Dr. Clayson and all of us who have supported it. It is important to remember that we are dealing with human behaviour and that it is impossible to legislate in respect of human behaviour. I certainly hope that it leads to better attitudes in Scotland towards alcohol.
Dr. Clayson said in his report that he hoped that the effects of the liberalising measures which he recommended, if carried through, would be monitored, None of us with the best will in the world, whichever side we take on the argument, can be certain what the results will be. I hope that the Government will carry through the monitoring that Dr. Clayton recommended because that would help us to evaluate properly and precisely what the effect of the Bill will be. I welcome the measure and thank all those who have been involved with it.

9.44 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: I would briefly say that my view on how we have legislated has not differed from the start of the evening but despite that I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for the way in which they have handled the Bill during the all night sitting.
They have both shown a degree of brevity and flexibility which I do not normally associate with Scottish Office Ministers. As I am one who is always ready to criticise Scottish Ministers, I think that we should thank them for a job extremely well done. I would pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), although I fell asleep during one of his contributions in the middle of the night.
I think the whole House would agree that it has been worth while sitting up all night in order to get the Government to realise that they were on the wrong track as far as clubs were concerned. It was during the debate on the Clayson Committee Report that I first said that I saw no support for the propositions in the report and that I felt that its recommendations were on the wrong track. I am glad that it has been shown that I was wrong and that the support has been extensive.
As one who opposed Sunday opening, I accept the decision as a democrat, and I hope that it will be a great success. I hope that the licensing authorities will proceed with great caution on extending licences into Sunday and that great attention will be paid to the type of premises which receive them.
It will be a great shame if the Bill, because of the publicity, becomes known as the Sunday Opening Bill. There are other important provisions in it. The new types of certificate will, I hope, lead to a civilising influence on the drinking habits of Scotland. None of us, whatever our views on the Bill, can be satisfied with the present rate of alcoholism in Scotland or the state of drinking habits. I hope that at the end of the day we shall feel that the Bill is successful. The Ministers deserve to be congratulated.

9.46 a.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I add my voice to the welcome for the Bill as it stands. I agree that there is much more in it than just the question of Sunday opening. It is a comprehensive and forward-looking measure. It has been a long haul since Clayson reported in 1971. It has taken five years—I would say too long—to get this measure on to the statute book. Now that it is there I welcome it.
I take a different view from the Leader of the Liberal Party about Sunday opening. I voted for it. I was worried when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, explaining the fall-back clause, said that it would be used toughly against licensees applying for Sunday licences. I hope that it will be used in exactly the opposite direction—against unsatisfactory premises open during the week—and that we shall not create second-class pubs, open for only six days a week, and first-


hope that we shall raise the standards of all public houses and have one uniform standard.
That is not the Bill's sole concern. I am glad that it covers all the other aspects of opening. I too hope that Dr. Clay-son's request for more research into the Bill's effects will be met. We do not want next time around to hear rubbishy arguments about more opening hours leading to more drunkenness and alcoholism. There is a set of causal connections there which are not known. We must know more. We must watch for any defects. Let us hope that this liberalising measure is a success.

9.48 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Unlike the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), I think that the House has made a great mistake by passing a Bill to reform drinking hours in Scotland without making a serious attempt to change the character of drinking premises or to find the root causes of excessive drinking.
The Leader of the Liberal Party said that the powers in regard to Sunday opening must be used sparingly or with caution. I hope that he has read the schedule which gives the alleged protection. It says that unless the granting of a Sunday licence will lead to undue disturbance or public nuisance the boards must approve Sunday opening. There is no discretion.
I fear that we have made a major change without the necessary safeguards. I am very disappointed. This is a move in the wrong direction. I do not look upon the Bill as something which will be monitored and which will be changed in a few years if it does not work. All moves to permissiveness or liberalisation since I came to this House have been permanent. There is no way back. What worries me is that these changes have not been successful but have resulted in a crumbling of the moral standards and standards of conduct and much more human misery.
My greatest hope tonight is that I am totally wrong, that the Bill will be a great success and that we shall achieve civilised drinking. But all the evidence that I have seen and all experience of similar Bills has been exactly the opposite. We have

made a mistake. We have also lost a great opportunity to have a real reform Bill and not just an extension of pub hours, which is basically all that the Bill is, however it is dressed up.
Those who have campaigned for licensing reform and have sat here through the night, particularly the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, have run a brilliant campaign. They have done well. I hope that for the sake of Scotland they are right and I am wrong.

9.51 a.m.

Mr. Dalyell: As one who did not serve on the Committee, perhaps I am in a good position to acknowledge with gratitude, on behalf of others who were not on the Committee, the work that was done by Members of all parties who served on the Committee. Anybody reading through the massive amount of Committee work must be impressed by the work done not only by the Ministers concerned but by hon. Members on both sides.
Frankly, I was a bit disconcerted by what was apparently a fairly sudden decision by the Government to change their mind on the issue of police supervision of clubs. Why was that change of mind made?
The reply may be "You did not vote against it." Frankly, I was so disconcerted that, not being one who is given to instant opposition to my own Government—at any rate, without having had time to reflect on the matter—I did not call out. However, it is legitimate to ask why there was that change of mind. There may have been good reasons for it, but they have not been spelt out. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies for the last time he will turn his attention to that question.

9.53 a.m.

Mr. Monro: As Dr. Clayson is a constituent of mine, I know that this morning he will feel particularly pleased that the Bill—largely based on his recommendations—is now well on its way to the statute book. He will probably feel that all the work that his committee put in over so many years of taking evidence has been well worth while. I feel that the Bill is now in a better shape than when it went into Committee. I welcome most of the changes that were made in Committee and on Report.
I hope—I am sure that this will be so because of the Scottish Office's interest in the Health Education Unit—that the efforts to reduce alcoholism through publicity and helping the organisations involved with alcoholics and in the research done by the universities and by the Health Education Unit will bear fruition in the years ahead. If we can in any way begin to reduce alcoholism in Scotland, that will be a major step forward. I do not think that anything we have done in the Bill will do other than help towards that end.

9.54 a.m.

Mr. Canavan: Much of the publicity given to the Bill outside the House has centred round the proposal for Sunday opening. I voted in favour of Sunday opening and was particularly pleased that that provision was carried.
The more liberalised laws that will come from the Bill will, hopefully, lead to more civilised and healthier attitudes towards drinking and healthier drinking habits amongst the Scottish people, and will thereby fulfil the hopes of Dr. Clayson and his committee.
I was particularly pleased at the passing of my amendment regarding late licences for clubs. That provision will be welcomed by many working people throughout the cities, towns and villages of Scotland.
I should like to express a personal word of thanks to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing). We had some initial disagreements about police entry to clubs. However, I should like to thank him for his very generous concession and for the pains to which he went to discuss the matter not only with me but with representatives of the clubs in central Scotland at that meeting a few months ago at the Bannockburn Miners' Welfare Club. There was a historic happening at Bannockburn 662 years ago. I think that that meeting with club representatives at Bannockburn will go down as another historic event there, because the passing of this Bill is indeed a historic occasion. The Government do not often accept my advice but I urge them to do it more often, particularly the Treasury.

9.55 a.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: After spending 11 hours on Report, there is a danger that we might accede to my hon. Friend's requests to accept his advice more often. I intervene to resist that possibility.
I thank hon. Members for their gratitude to those who were responsible for seeing the Bill through. Perhaps I should exclude my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) from my next remark, but we could not have done the work without the co-operation of hon. Members, particularly in Committee. It was one of the best Committees on which I have served and at the time it was the only Committee on which the usual channels were working. It was harmonious.
I used to describe myself as the "Three Ds Minister"—divorce, devolution and drink. The divorce Bill is on the statute book, the drink Bill is on its way to another place and I should be grateful if hon. Members could give me the hat-trick.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ARMED FORCES (SCOTTISH PERSONNEL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

9.56 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Over the week-end, on several separate occasions, people volunteered how much they agreed with me in not wanting an Assembly in Edinburgh—but then added that because they were angry with the failure of the local authority to do X, Y or Z or because they were angy with the Chancellor over cuts in A, B or C they would "give the SNP a try" at the next election.
Well, people in Scotland are at liberty to vote as they think fit—but there is an obligation on some of us, before the next election comes, to spell out, as objectively as possible, what the future of Scots personnel in the British Forces is and what would be the cost, in operational efficiency and millions of pounds increase, of separate Scottish forces.
That is why I wrote to Service Ministers in mid-April asking a number of pertinent questions about what would, in reality happen were there separate Scottish forces; why I repeated some of the questions during the defence and Estimates debates; and why this morning I give the opportunity for the Minister of State to reply at greater length than is possible during Service debates to certain questions.
First, if Scottish personnel were hived off from the British Armed Forces what would be the effect on the operational efficiency of NATO? Secondly, would there be sufficient Scottish personnel, with appropriate skills, to establish viable units of Scottish RA Gunners, Scottish RE Sappers, a Scottish Corps of Signals, a Scottish Corps of Transport and the like? Thirdly, what would happen to regiments such as the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and the Scots Guards where there is a substantial proportion of English-born personnel? Could Englishmen accept mercenary status with Scottish regiments and equally, could Scots, in English units accept mercenary status, if they desired such an option?
Fourthly, do the specialisations of Rosyth cover those needed by a putative self-supporting Scottish navy for the defence of that area of the North Sea that international law might reasonably accord to Scotland? What extra expense would be involved for the English Navy if it were required to protect the Shetland oil fields, if the Vikings in Lerwick implemented their stated intention of remaining with Westminster, and shunning the Edinburgh Government? For what would a Scottish navy have to ask for specialist facilities at Devonport, Portsmouth or Chatham? Those of us who have been to Alverstoke know the expensive speciality involved in deep diving.
Fifthly, supposing a separate Scotland got one-eighth of the Royal Navy, what would be the capability for operating in the North Sea? What would be the difficulties for a Scottish navy in making sure that it had a cross-section of skilled personnel in each specialisation?
Sixthly, do the specialisations available in Scotland cover a self-supporting air force? Could a separate Scottish air force provide the necessary training, maintenance, and servicing without recourse to

payment for English facilities, in relation to Nimrod, MRCA, and Rapier?
I am bound to recall that Panavia—to wit, Dr. Madelung at Manching—told us that Holland drew out of the MRCA because she was basically too small a country for a separate MRCA capability. Scotland has about a third of the resources of Holland. What would be the effect on such firms as Ferrantis of Edinburgh and the Cameron iron works of Livingston if an independent Scotland opted out of the MRCA programme? I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who represents part of Livingston.
Seventhly, what are the existing training costs for a pilot on a sophisticated aircraft, such as Jaguar, and what would be the putative additional costs of training personnel for a separate Scottish air force?
Eighthly, how dependent are the Services on great research centres such os the RRE at Malvern, and what would be the position of Scottish forces if they were denied access to such establishments?
Ninthly, how difficult would it be to disentangle pension rights which have accrued to former and present members of the British Armed Forces, should Scotland become a separate State?
Tenthly, will Ministers regard it as their duty, over the coming months, to lose no opportunity of spelling out to people in Scotland that independence means independence, and that it is no good mincing one's words and supposing that it will all be the same. We could drift into a position which few people in the United Kingdom want.
I have given the Department a great deal of notice that those questions would be asked. Lest anyone should think that they are fanciful, I should like to read a letter dated October 1974 and sent from 22 Kinneddar Street, Lossiemouth, by the then SNP parliamentary candidate for Moray and Nairn, now the Member for that constituency (Mrs. Ewing). She wrote:
Dear Elector,
RAF and SNP
I am often asked "What happens to the Royal Air Force when Scotland becomes Independent?
The answer is simple: it continues as the Scottish Royal Air Force and doubtless as


English and Welsh Royal Air Forces too. The RAF is in fact the simplest of the Services to apportion as the proportion of RAF Stations in Scotland is much the same as Scotland's share of the population of Britain. The air stations at Kinloss and Lossiemouth among others would continue in operation (the SNP is the only party committed to this) along with its aircraft and equipment.
We need these airfields. We need them to fulfil our commitment to NATO of which we would be a member. Near home we need them because they are a very important factor in the economy of Moray.
And what of the Serviceman who is not Scottish but who wants to go on serving in the RAF in Scotland? He has two choices: He can opt for Scottish citizenship to which he will be entitled by his domicile in Scotland at the time of Independence or we hope that he will be able to serve in the Scottish Royal Air Force in the same way as men from Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia do now and will so continue to do. Of course, this depends on agreements being reached with England and Wales and the other Commonwealth nations which would be to the benefit of all.
With Scottish Independence becoming nearer, some non-Scottish servicemen who have bought, or are planning to buy, houses here are asking if they can own houses in Independent Scotland. The answer is a clear yes to owner occupiers of whatever nationality, and servicemen will be entitled to let their houses while on tours of duty abroad.
I know that a great number of you, many not Scottish born, voted for me in February. I thank you most sincerely for your support then. I think you will agree that I have not disappointed you as your MP.
Yours sincerely,
Winifred Ewing.
I read that out to show that what I am saying is not fanciful but is a possibility and should be taken seriously by the Department. I look forward to the answer of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to whom I am extremely grateful for having stayed up through the night.

10.4 a.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): As the only Englishman—perhaps in your presence, Mr. Speaker, I should make clear that I am half a Welshman—to have survived a long Scottish night, may I say first how remarkable is the fortitude of Scots, certainly when they are discussing problems of drink—or no drink, as the case may be—but how glad I am that we have reached this debate at least at a respectable hour on a Wednesday morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has asked a number

of typically penetrating questions. I appreciate the anxiety behind them. Ten years ago there were very few of us, certainly few like myself who were not close to Scottish affairs, who anticipated the measures of devolution to Scotland that are being discussed today. As a result, there are many Members who remain unhappy about the likely course of events. I was shocked to hear of the letter apparently sent to her electors by the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), which seemed to strike an unusual note of irresponsibility. Until my hon. Friend began to raise this matter, I had not realised that the Scottish National Party had seriously considered the possibility of independent Scottish forces.
May I make it absolutely clear that in the proposals that will be put before the House in the next Session there will be nothing related to separate armed forces for Scotland or to Scottish personnel for the Armed Forces. Separate armed forces imply a separate defence policy, and a separate defence policy implies a separate foreign policy. That would mean the end of the United Kingdom. We should not even have a federal system. Scotland would be independent. There would be a frontier. There would be nationality rules. Scots would be foreigners in England and Englishmen would be foreigners in Scotland. I still like to believe, though my hon. Friend may tell me that I am wrong, that only a lunatic fringe really wants it that way.
Before this morning my hon. Friend had asked for a White Paper and others of my hon. Friends have made similar noises. I previously cast doubt on such an idea, and that it still my position. To me, the proposition of separate armed forces for Scotland remains nonsense. It follows that I feel unable to justify the time that it would take hard-pressed officials in the Defence Department to do all the necessary work to produce a White Paper. On our reduced budget we simply have no resources for such activities.
For the same reason—and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will understand this—I might have difficulty in giving precise replies to my hon. Friend's questions. I entirely agree that they are not fanciful. They ought to be taken seriously, but I do not think I can deal with them seriatim, and I hope he will understand that.
As an example, take the number of Scots—or Scottish-born citizens of the United Kingdom—who serve in the Armed Forces. We do not have the figures because we have never counted heads. That is the sort of discrimination that we have previously sought to avoid. What I can say—this goes some way to provide the background for several of my hon. Friend's questions—is that it appears that some 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom Services are recruited in Scotland. With the exception of a number of clearly identified Scottish regiments in the Army, these men and women are scattered throughout the Services with representatives in every branch and specialisation.
The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force pay little attention to the country of origin, and that is important in view of the hon. Lady's letter. Both Services are organised functionally rather than geographically. The distribution of Scotsmen in the Services is, therefore, largely random.
Even assuming that the full 10 per cent. would wish to join independent Scottish forces—I shall comment on that in a moment—the chance of their representing a well-balanced cross-section of all the various trades, skills and specialisations required today is remote. There could easily be, to take an obvious example, a surplus of pipers and a severe shortage of artillerymen, an excess of engineers and a dearth of pilots for the RAF. To bring their forces into balance, the Scots would therefore be faced with a massive and expensive programme of redundancies, retraining and recruitment with, probably, a return to conscription.
This is no idle threat, because I find it impossible, to say the least, that all those Scots who currently join the Services for the challenging career they still offer would find the attractions of a limited life with the separate Scottish forces sufficiently worth while. It should be noted that among our allies all the smaller nations resort to conscription, not least Norway, which the Scottish National Party appears to regard as an acceptable model. Out of a total full-time service strength of 35,000, the Norwegians maintain some 24,000 conscripts. Therefore, an independent Scotland should expect conscription.
My hon. Friend asked about pensions and the problems of disentangling the payments due once independent Scottish forces had been set up. I must confess that this is not a question to which the Government have given a great deal of attention, but I can say that Service records do not differentiate between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and the task of separately tracing the pension entitlement of all those Scotsmen serving with the Crown would be prodigious. I only hope that those who advocate the creation of separate armed forces, to be drawn presumably from those serving at present, have recognised the considerable pension liability they would inherit and are prepared to honour it. Otherwise, if I were a Serviceman I would be very worried indeed about my security when I left the Services. I would certainly not vote for a party which threatened to create separate armed forces.

Mr. Dalyell: Hear, hear—absolutely.

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend asked about operational effectiveness. I would not contest that separate Scottish forces could effectively discharge some of the minor roles which the United Kingdom Services undertake at present. But the SNP must come clean in declaring whether or not it intends to play any worthwhile part in the collective security arrangements which have ensured our peace and freedom since the 1940s.
Since the inception of NATO, the British have played a major part in the defence of Western Europe. The Royal Navy remains the major European maritime power declared to NATO, whilst the Britsh Army of the Rhine has a key rôle in safeguarding the central front. Faced with the continuing buildup of the Warsaw Pact conventional forces, the Western Alliance is acutely concerned to obtain better value for money from scarce resources. Consequently, every member of NATO acknowledges the need for greater co-operation. This is evident not only in the increasing number of collaborative equipment projects but also in the renewed pressure from NATO commanders for more effective integration of military doctrine and procedures. The break-up of the British contribution to


NATO would be a direct reversal of this trend and a most damaging blow to the Alliance. Quite apart from the initial disruption that would ensue, the separate forces eventually emerging would undoubtedly be more costly and less effective than those we have now.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of support for the Services. It is naïve to imagine that the Forces of the Crown can in some way be divided up and that Scottish forces can be set up by simply taking over those units at present located there. The Services are immensely complex organisations, and the growth of modern military technology has resulted in extensive administrative and logistics tails performing the vital functions of support, maintenance and training, without which the front line would soon collapse. It is not enough today to raise the Highland levies and send them into battle. Indeed, from the calculations we have done it appears that all the Scotsmen currently in the British Army could not man the Scottish regiments effectively for lack of the necessary support and logistics back-up. A whole network of research and development establishments, defence contractors, ordnance depots, workshops and training schools is required before a soldier can perform the duties for which he is trained.
In the case of the Army, there are few facilities of that kind in Scotland. There are no central workshops in Scotland, no arms schools, no central ordnance depots, no central vehicle depots and only limited facilities for basic infantry training and running repair of vehicles. There is not sufficient barrack accommodation for all the Scottish units in the British Army, and only one Royal ordnance factory.
For the high-technology Services, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, indigenous Scottish facilities are even more limited. Those facilities located in Scotland are highly specialised and not easily converted to other tasks. For example, the naval dockyard at Rosyth concentrates on refitting the Polaris submarines, which I understand the nationalists are determined to evict from Scottish waters, and also the expensive nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines which could play little or no part in a separate Scottish navy. Likewise, the

Naval Construction Research Establishment at Dunfermline specialises in advanced naval work with particular emphasis on submarine construction. The RAF stations at Lossiemouth, Leuchars and Kinloss provide servicing for Nimrods, Shackletons and Rapier missiles. But there are no major RAF maintenance units in Scotland, nor any front-line training facilities, with the exception of the Jaguar operational conversion unit at Lossiemouth. None of the front-line aircraft operated by the RAF is manufactured in Scotland. Consequently there is no industrial repair capacity available either.
My hon. Friend mentioned the cost of training. We estimate the cost of training a pilot for a modern, sophisticated military aircraft to be up to £500,000. On all our evidence, the cost would be a great deal larger if the training for Scotland was clone separately in Scotland.
In summary, I see a number of grave disadvantages in any move, however hypothetical, to establish separate Scottish armed forces independent of the remainder of the United Kingdom. First, recruiting to these forces would not be easy. Secondly, the arbitrary division of the present Forces of the Crown into those who happen to be Scots and those who do not would undoubtedly result in a Scottish rump which would amount to no more than scratch Services, unbalanced in trades, skills and specialisation.
Thirdly, separate Scottish forces would face a serious lack of training and support facilities. Some extensive facilities located in Scotland would be left lying idle. Some establishments might even have to close, with obvious employment consequences. Elsewhere, considerable capital expenditure would be required in providing the necessary infrastructure for the Services to perform essential tasks which are currently undertaken south of the border. This would be an immensely costly process.
Fourthly, the industrial consequences would be similar. The loss of Royal Naval orders to the shipbuilding yards of Yarrow and Scott-Lithgow would be a serious blow, and I cannot see that such plans as there are for a separate Scottish navy would do much to fill the gap. We must also remember that there are no manufacturers capable of


designing and building sophisticated military aircraft in Scotland at present, nor are there many firms manufacturing Army weapons or equipment. Separate forces would consequently mean a massive import bill for military equipment, which would add to the other costs of going it alone.
Fifthly, there can be no doubt that separate forces could only downgrade the current contribution which the United Kingdom makes to NATO. With the best will in the world, an independent Scottish contingent, either fighting alongside the remaining British forces or occupying some different segment of the front, at 10 per cent. or less of our current united strength, would have a minor impact not only in military but also in political terms. The break-up of the current United Kingdom forces could only damage the overall credibility of NATO.
It is fair to ask those who advocate this to say whether they want to damage NATO or whether they regard this as an unimportant factor. Are they concerned with symbols or with the realities of the proper security of the Scottish people?10.4 a.m.
It is difficult to assess the financial implications of the proposals we are now discussing as they have not been formulated with any precision. It is for others who want to see separation to produce a properly-worked-out White Paper. Nevertheless, I have seen some reports which suggest a figure of £350 million for a Scottish defence budget, or about 4·5 per cent. of probable Scottish gross national product. This is considerably less than 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom defence budget and would clearly sustain forces of only marginal military capability. Norway, for example, with a population of over 1 mil-

lion less than Scotland, spends more than £450 million on defence at current exchange rates. From such calculations as we have been able to do, it is clear that a more realistic budget for separate Scottish forces—if they are to be something more than a combined coastguard and gendarmerie—would be at least £500 million, exclusive of the extra initial costs of transition and disruption—and I repeat that the initial costs of separation would be very high. This would be 6½ per cent. of Scottish GNP compared with the current figure of 5½ per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole and it would still be a smaller expenditure per head than that of Norway, which appears to be the model.
I conclude that a breakaway movement by the Scots would leave them with limited forces, poorly organised and recruited, lacking sophisticated equipment in any one arm, suffering from a critical lack of support, training and maintenance facilities and ineffective for defending Scotland—all at considerably greater cost than at present. It would be a sad moment for the Scottish people and a black day for us all.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reference in the letter of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) to a Welsh Royal Air Force is equally absurd?10.4 a.m.

Mr. Rodgers: I regarded the letter to which my hon. Friend refers as remarkably absurd. If there were such ridiculous proposals for Wales—I do not believe that there are, and I should not expect them—the greater part of what I have said would apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Division List No. 282 [See col. 306]


Division No. 282.]
AYES
6.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lomas, Kenneth


Allaun, Frank
English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Anderson, Donald
Ennals, David
Luard, Evan


Archer, Peter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyons, Edward (BBradford W)


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, John (Newton)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Ashley, Jack
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Atkinson, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Flannery, Martin
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnelt, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Maclennan, Robert


Bates, Alt
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bean, R. E.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Boardman, H.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan
Mendelson, John


Broughtort, Sir Alfred
Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Buchanan, Richard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moonman, Eric


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Campbell, Ian
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Canavan, Dennis
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moyle, Roland


Cant, R. B.
Hatton, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Carmichael, Neil
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Carter, Ray
Heifer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley


Cartwright, John
Hooley, Frank
Noble, Mike


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Clemitson, Ivor
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ogden, Eric


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les
Orbach, Maurice


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ovenden, John


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Owen, Or David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter


Corbett, Robin
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Park, George


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parker, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parry, Robert


Cronin, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Janner, Greville
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, C (Lewisham W)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Richardson, Miss Jo


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)


de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rowlands, Ted


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sandelson, Neville


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Selby, Harry


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Seun)
Litterick, Tom
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
White, James (Pollok)


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Whitehead, Phillip


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Depttord)
Tierney, Sydney
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Sillars, James
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Silverman, Julius
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Skinner, Dennis
Torney, Tom
Williams, Sir Thomas


Small, William
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Snape, Peter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Spearing, Nigel
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spriggs, Leslie
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Woodall, Alec


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Stoddart, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stott, Roger
Ward, Michael
Young, David (Bolton E)


Strang, Gavin
Watkins, David



Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Watkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Weetch, Ken
Mr. Ted Graham and


Swain, Thomas
Weltzman, David
Mr. A. W. Stallard


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wellbeloved, James



Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
White, Frank R. (Bury)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hurd, Douglas


Alison, Michael
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Arnold, Tom
Emery, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
James, David


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dt'd)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Baker, Kenneth
Fairgrieve, Russell
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Banks, Robert
Fair, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Beith, A. J.
Fell, Anthony
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bell, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jopling, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kershaw, Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fox, Marcus
Kilfedder, James


Biffen, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kimball, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, John
Freud, Clement
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Blaker, Peter
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Kirk, Sir Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Knox, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lament, Norman


Bradford, Rev Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lane, David


Brittan, Leon
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brotherton, Michael
Goodhart, Philip
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Lawrence, Ivan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Alastair
Lawson, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gorst, John
Le Marchant, Spencer


Buck, Antony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Budgen, Nick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lloyd, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Loverldge, John


Burden, F. A.
Gray, Hamish
Luce, Richard


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Eldon
MacCormick, lain


Carlisle, Mark
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McCrindle, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian
Macfarlane, Neil


Channon, Paul
Grylls, Michael
MacGregor, John


Churchill, W. S.
Hall, Sir John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclitfe)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Madel, David


Clegg, Walter
Hannam,John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cockcroft, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Mies
Mates, Michael


Cope, John
Hastings, Stephen
Mather, Carol


Cordle, John H.
Havers, Sir Michael
Maude, Angus


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Costain, A. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Crawford, Douglas
Henderson, Douglas
Mayhew, Patrick


Critchley, Julian
Heselline, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Crowder, F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon J, (Knutsford)
Holland, Philip
Mlscampbell, Norman


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter
Moate, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James


Drayson, Burneby
Howell, David (Guildford)
Monro, Hector


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howell, Ralph (North Norflok)
Montgomery, Fergus


Durant, Tony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Dykes, Hugh
Hunt, John (Bromley)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Morgan, Geraint
Ridsdale, Julian
Stradling Thomas, J,


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rilkind, Malcolm
Tapsell, Peter


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tebbit, Norman


Mudd, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neave, Airey
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nelson, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Neubert, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Newton, Tony
Royle, Sir Anthony
Thompson, George


Normanton, Tom
Sainsbury, Tim
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D.


Onslow, Cranley
Scott-Hopkins, James
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Osborn, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shepherd, Colin
Viggers, Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Shersby, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Parkinson, Cecil
Silvester, Fred
Wakenham, John


Penhaligon, David
Sims, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Percival, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Weatherill, Bernard


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speed, Keith
Wells, John


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wiggin, Jerry


Raison, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rathbone, Tim
Sproat, Iain
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stainton, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Rees-Davles, W. R.
Stanley, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Reid, George
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Younger, Hon George


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)



Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mr. Jim Lester and


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stokes, John
Mr. John Corrie




Division List No. 283 [See col. 341]


Division No. 283.]
AYES
[7.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Goodlad, Alastair


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John
Gorst, John


Alison, Michael
Cordle, John H.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Arnold, Tom
Costain, A. P.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gray, Hamish


Awdry, Daniel
Crawford, Douglas
Griffiths, Eldon


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Critchley, Julian
Grimond, Rt Hon J-


Baker, Kenneth
Crouch, David
Grist, Ian


Banks, Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Grylls, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hall, Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hall-Davis, A. 0. F.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, W.
Drayson, Burnaby
Hannam, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
du Cann. Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bitten, John
Durant, Tony
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh
Hastings, Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Havers, Sir Michael


Body, Richard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Elliott, Sir William
Hayhoe, Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Emery, Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Henderson, Douglas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Eyre, Reginald
Heseltine, Michael


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hicks, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Fairgrieve, Russell
Higgins, Terence L.


Brotherton, Michael
Farr, John
Holland, Philip


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fell, Anthony
Hooson, Emlyn


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Forman, Nigel
Howell, David (Guildford)


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Freud, Clement
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Carlisle, Mark
Fry, Peter
Hurd, Douglas


Carson, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Channon, Paul
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
James, David


Churchill, W. S.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Jesse1, Toby


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Clegg, Walter
Goodhart, Philip
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Cockcroft, John
Goodhew, Victor
Jopling, Michael

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Mudd, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Kabetry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nelson, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Kershaw, Anthony
Neubert, Michael
Spence, John


Kilfedder, James
Newton, Tony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Kimball, Marcus
Normanton, Tom
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Nott, John
Sproat, Iain


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Kirk, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Osborn, John
Stanley, John


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, John (Harrow West)
Steel, David (Roxburgn)


Knox, David
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Lamont, Norman
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lane, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Penhaligon, David
Stokes, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Percival, Ian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lawrence, Ivan
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Luce, Richard
Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, George


MacCormick, lain
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Townsend, Cyril D.


McCrindle, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Trotter, Neville


Macfarlane, Neil
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tugendhat, Christopher


MacGregor, John
Reid, George
van Straubenzee W. R.


Macmilian, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Viggers, Peter


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Madel, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas



Marshall. Michael (Arundel)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wakeham, John


Marten, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walder,David (clitheroe)


Mates, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall Patrick


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Mawby, Ray
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walters, Dennis


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Warren, Kenneth


Mayhew, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Watt, Hamish


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Weatherill, Bernard


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wells, John


Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim
Welsh, Andrew


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Moate, Roger
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Molyneaux, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shepherd, Colin
Younger, Hon George


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shersby, Michael



Morgan, Geraint
Silvester, Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sims, Roger
Mr. John Corrie and


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sinclair, Sir Roger
Mr. Carol Mather.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Skeet, T. H. H.





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Archer, Peter
Buchanan, Richard
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Armstrong, Ernest
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dalyell, Tarn


Ashley, Jack
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davidson, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Campbell, Ian
Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkinson, Norman
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cant, R. B.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carmichael, Neil
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Carter, Ray
Dean, Joseph (Leeds Vest)


Bean, R. E.
Cartwright, John
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Clemitson, Ivor
Dempsey, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Doig, Peter


Bishop, E. S.
Cohen, Stanley
Dormand, J. D.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coleman, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Duffy, A. E. P.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Dunn, James A.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Dunnett, Jack


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Corbett, Robin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Eadle, Alex


Bradley, Tom
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Edge, Geoff


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crawshaw, Richard
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cronin, John
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
English, Michael

Ennals, David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rooker, J.W.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rooker, J.W.


Evana, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)
Roper, John Rose Paul B.


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Litterick, Tom
Sandelson, Neville


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Sedgemore,Brian


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Loyden, Eddie
Selby Harry


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sheldon,Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Rt Hon E.(Newcastle C)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkin Rt, Hon, John(Denford)


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silkin Rt Hon S.C.(Dulwich)


Forrester, John
MacKenzie, Gregor
Sillars,James


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Julius


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maclennan, Robert
Skinner Dennis


Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Small, William


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Madden, Max
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Magee, Bryan
Snape Peter


George, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Spearing, Nigel


Gilbert, Dr John
Mallalleu, J. p. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A.W.


Golding, John
Marquand, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan
 Strauss, Rt Hon G.R.


Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grocott, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hatton, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Tierney, Sydney


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tomlinson, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tomney, Frank


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Torney, Tom


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tuck, Raphael


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H
 Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tuck, Raphael


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Newens, Stanley
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Huckfield, Les
Noble, Mike
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Halloran, Michael
Waker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Ward, Michael


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkins, David


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ovenden, John
Watkinson, John


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Owen, Dr David
Weetch, Ken


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Padley, Walter
Weitzman, David


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Janner, Greville
Park, George
White, James (Pollok)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parker, John
Whitehead, Phillip 


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert
Whitlock, William


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wigley, Dafydd


John, Brynmor
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Sir Thomas


Judd, Frank
Prescott, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kaufman, Gerald
Price, C (Lewisham W)
Wilson, Rt Hon (Huyton)


Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Kerr, Russell
Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Woodall, Alee


Kinnock, Nell
Richardson, Miss Jo
Woof, Robert


Lamble, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Gwitym (Cannock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lamond, James
Robinson, Geoffrey



Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roderick, Caerwyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Alf Bates and


Lee, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. Frank R. White.




Division List No. 284 [See col. 385]


Division No. 284.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)


Alison, Michael
Baker, Kenneth
Benyon, W.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Banks Robert
Berry, Hon Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Beith, A. J.
Biffen, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bell, Ronald
Biggs-Davison, John

Blaker, Peter
Hall, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A.G.F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David


Bradford, Rev Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neave, Airey


Brittan, Leon
Hastings, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Brotherton, Michael
Havers, Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nott, John


Buck, Antony
Henderson, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Budgen, Nick
Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bulmer, Esmond
Hicks, Robert
Osborn, John


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow West)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Paisley, Rev Ian


Carson, John
Hordern, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Channon, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (North Norflok)
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Rowells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clegg, Walter
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cockcrott, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ralson, Timothy


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Cope,John
James, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cordle, John H.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dt'd)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corrie, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Reid, George


Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Crawford, Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Crowder, F. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elalne
Rifkind, Malcolm


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dunlop, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs Jill
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eyre, Reginald
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Fell, Anthony
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir Roger


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacCormick, lain
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Freud, Clement
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marten, Nell
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mather, Carol
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maude, Angus
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gorst, John
Mills, Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Eldon
Monro, Hector
Thompson, George


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Grist, Ian
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Trotter, Neville

Tugendhat, Christopher
Walters, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth
Winterton, Nicholas


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Watt, Hamish
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Viggers, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Wainwright, Richard (Coins V)
Wells, John
Younger, Hon George


Wakenham, John
Welsh, Andrew



Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Wall, Patrick






NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard


Allaun, Frank
Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Archer, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Nell


Armstrong, Ernest
Edge, Geoff
Lamble, David


Ashley, Jack
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lamborn, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamond, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ennals, David
Lee, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bates, Alf
Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)


Bean, R. E.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Faulds, Andrew
Lipton, Marcus


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Litterick, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch. Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Loyden, Eddie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Luard, Evan


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foot, Rt Hon Mlch8el
McCartney, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ford, Ben
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Forrester, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Buchanan, Richard
Gilbert, Dr John
Magee, Bryan


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Golding, John
Mellalleu, J. P. W.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth


Campbell, Ian
Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cant, R. B.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Carter, Ray
Grocott, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cartwright, John
Hamilton. W. W. (Central Fife)
Meacher, Michael


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Harrison. Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mikardo, Ian


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Millan, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hatton, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hayman, Mrs Helens
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Heffer, Eric S.
Moonman, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham,Sm H)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Dalyell, Tarn
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice


Davies. Bryan (Enfield N)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jay. Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, Walter


Deakir., Eric
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Park, George


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
Parker, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pavitt, Laurie


Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Dormand, J. D.
Jones. Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald
Phipps, Dr Colin

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Prescott, John
Small, William
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Price, C (Lewisham W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Ward, Michael


Price, William (Rugby)
Snape, Peter
Watkins, David


Radice, Giles
Spearing, Nigel
Watkinson, John


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Spriggs, Leslie
Weetch, Ken


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stallard, A. W.
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stoddart, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger
White, James (Pollok)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Whitlock, William


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rooker, J. W.
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Roper, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Sandelson, Neville
Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tierney, Sydney
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Selby, Harry
Tinn, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tomlinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Tuck, Raphael
Young, David (Bolton E)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Urwin, T. W.



Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Sillars, James
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Silverman, Julius

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Division List No. 285 [See col. 483]


Division No. 285.]
AYES
[3.24 a.m.


Beith, A. J.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Ross, Rt Hon W (Kilmarnock)


Bradford, Rev R.
Gray, Hamish
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Small, William


Buchanan, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Smith, John (North Lanarkshire)


Carson, John
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Corrie, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hunter, Adam
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Dempsey, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Welsh, Andrew


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James



Eadie, Alex
MacKenzie, Gregor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Robin F. Cook and


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Ian Campbell.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Paisley, Rev Ian





NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Selby, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jopling, Michael
Sillars, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kimball, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sproat, lain


Carmichael, Neil
Knox, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol South)
Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Conlan, Bernard
Le Marchant, Spencer
Thomas, Ron (Bristol North West)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thompson, George


Crawford, Douglas
Loyden, Eddie
Urwin, Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Watt, Hamish


Durant, Tony
McCartney, Hugh
White, James (Pollok)


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacCormick, lain
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow Central)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Younger, Hon George


Gourlay, Harry
Monro, Hector



Grist, Ian
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert
Mr. John P. Mackintosh and


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sir. John Gilmour.


Henderson, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm

Division List No. 286 [See col. 493]


Division No.286.]
AYES
[4.09 a.m.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Lester, Jim (Beeston)



Corrie, John
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fairgrieve, Russell
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Teddy Taylor and


Gray, Hamish
Welsh, Andrew
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Younger, Hon George





NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Selby, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Sillars, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, John (North Lanarkshire)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Buchanan, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Campbell, Ian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Strang, Gavin


Canavan, Dennis
Lambie, David
Thompson, George


Carmichael, Neil
McCartney, Hugh
Urwin, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol South)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Watt, Hamish


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Mackintosh, John P.
White, James (Pollok)


Crawford, Douglas
Maclennan, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Dalyell, Tarn
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow Central)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Dempsey, James
Millan, Bruce



Doig, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eadle, Alex
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. James Hamilton and


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Reid, George
Mr. Robin F. Cook.


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Division List No. 287 [See col. 499]


Division No. 287.]
AYES
[4.34 a.m.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sillars, James


Beith, A. J.
Hunter, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Small, William


Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David
Smith, John (North Lanarkshire)


Campbell, Ian
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Canavan, Dennis Carmichael, Nell
MacKenzie, Gregor Mackintosh, John P.
Strang, Gavin


Cocks, Michael (Bristol South)
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, Tom


Dalyell, Tarn
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow Central)
White, James (Pollok)


Dempsey, James
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Doig, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)



Eadie, Alex
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Selby, Harry
Mr. Robin F. Cook.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith






NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gray, Hamish
Thompson, George


Buchanan, Richard
Henderson, Douglas
Watt, Hamish


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Welsh, Andrew


Crawford, Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Younger, Hon George


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Reid, George



Fairbairn, Nicholas
Rifkind, Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fairgrieve, Russell
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. John Corrie and


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Mr. Hector Monro.

Division List No. 288 [See col. 505


Division No. 288.]
AYES
[5.04 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)



Beith, A. J.
Le Merchant, Spencer
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Mr. Donald Stewart and


Gray, Hamish
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Teddy Taylor.


Hutchison, Michael Clark






NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Selby, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Sillars, James


Buchanan, Richard
Henderson, Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Small, William


Campbell, Ian
Hunter, Adam
Smith, John (North Lanarkshire)


Canavan, Dennis
Lambie, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carmichael, Nell
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Cocks, Michael (Bristol South)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Thompson, George


Corrie, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, Tom


Dalyell, Tarn
Maclennan, Robert
Watt, Hamish


Dempsey, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow Central)
White, James (Pollok)


Doig, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Eadie, Alex
Monro, Hector



Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Reid, George
Mr. James Hamilton and


Fairgrieve, Russell
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Robin F. Cook.

Division List No. 289 [See col. 524]


Division No. 289.]
AYES
[6.14 a.m.


Beith, A. J.
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reid, George
Welsh, Andrew
Mrs. Margaret Bain and


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Mr. Hamish Watt.


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)






NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lambie, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Le Marchant, Spencer


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacCormick, Iain


Canavan, Dennis
Fairgrieve, Russell
MacKenzie, Gregor


Carmichael, Nell
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mackintosh, John P.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol South)
Gray, Hamish
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edinburgh Central)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow Central)


Corrie, John
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Bruce


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hunter, Adam
Monro, Hector


Dempsey, James
Hutchison, Michael lark
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Doig, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rifkind, Malcolm

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Smith, John (North Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Selby, Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Sillars, James
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, Tom
Mr. James Hamilton and


Small, William
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. Ian Campbell.

Division List No. 290 [See col. 525]


Division No. 290.]
AYES
[6.26 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Welsh, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)



Buchanan, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Corrie, John
Thompson, George
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Dempsey, James
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Russell Johnston.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James






NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Selby, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Lamble, David
Sillars, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Small, William


Carmichael, Nell
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (North Lanarkshire)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol South)
MacCormick, lain
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cook, Robin F. (Edinburgh C)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, Tom


Dalyell, Tarn
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow Central)
White, James (Pollok)


Doig, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Eadie, Alex
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Monro, Hector



Fairgrieve, Russell
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Reid, George
Mr. James Hamilton and


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Ian Campbell.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Division List No. 291 [See col. 532]


Division No. 291.]
AYES
[6.58 a.m.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Skinner, Dennis


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Buchan, Norman
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Thompson, George


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Welsh, Andrew


Carmichael, Nell
McCartney, Hugh
White, James (Pollok)


Cook, Robin F. (Edinburgh Central)
MacCormick, lain
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Corrie, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow Central)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Dempsey, James
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fairgrieve, Russell
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Dennis Canavan and


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Selby, Harry
Mr. David Lambie.


Gray, Hamish
Sillars, James





NOES


Beith, A.J.
Hunter, Adam
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Buchanan, Richard
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol South)
Millan, Bruce
Watt, Hamish


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King



Dalyell, Tarn
Reid, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Doig, Peter
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Small, William
Mr. Ian Campbell.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Smith, John (North Lanarkshire)

Division List No. 292 [See col. 548]


Division No. 292.]
AYES
[8.02 a.m


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)



Beith, A. J.
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR AYES


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow Central)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Mr.Tedd,Taylor.


Reid, George






NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Selby, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Sillars, James


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Skinner, Dennis


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Smith, John (North Lanarkshire)


Canavan, Dennis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carmichael, Neil
Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Cocks, Michael (Bristol South)
McCartney, Hugh
Urwin, Tom


Cook, Robin F. (Edinburgh Central)
MacKenzie, Gregor
White, James (Pollok)


Dalyell, Tarn
Maclerman, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Dempsey, James
Millan, Bruce



Doig, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eadie, Alex
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. James Hamilton and


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Ian Campbell.